as this is an event (crash), none of the keep !voters addressed concerns or provided any real evidence of
WP:PERSISTENT coverage. 2 keep !voters cited an unreleased report as evidence of persistent coverage. yet an unreleased report is not actually evidence.
LibStar (
talk)
23:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse The discussion was almost entirely based on the notability guidelines and, having considered them, people are entitled to take a view of whether an article is warranted. An AfD notability discussion is not like a game of whist – comments like "WP:EVENT trumps WP:GNG" do not represent guidelines or policy and neither is there a policy that "Libstar trumps other cards". There was no agreement on whether the topic meets the guidelines or on whether the article should be deleted.
Thincat (
talk)
08:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse I could have understood (even if not approved) a delrev for a keep closure, but it was clear there was no consensus in the discussion, and arguments as
WP:PERSISTENT can't be properly assessed given the time frame. LibStar being very anxious to
erase the encyclopedia piecemeal is not a deletion rationale either. --
cyclopiaspeak!10:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse a clear keep would have been better, but no consensus is correct. There was enough international coverage, as I have read about this Swedish train accident in both Dutch and Irish news sources. The Bannertalk22:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse The closure was fine, there no consensus one way or the other. Libstar argued with everyone in the first AFD early this year, then brought the article to a second AFD this month, and not getting his way that time either, comes to the deletion review to try yet again. Please stop beating a dead horse already.
DreamFocus15:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Henry Earl – No consensus, "delete" closure maintained by default. This
WP:BLP article was about a homeless person reported in the media for being frequently arrested. About 26 editors contributed to the deletion discussion, with 10 expressing a "keep" opinion and 16 a "delete" opinion based on an automated count. The AfD closer found a consensus to delete based on
WP:BLP1E. In this deletion review, about 30 contributors would endorse the closure and about 20 would overturn it, but they are divided about whether the outcome of the discussion should have been to keep the article because of no consensus to delete, or whether the deletion discussion should be relisted. I find that this review discussion does not yield consensus about whether and how to dispose of the contested closure. According to the procedures documented at the top of this page, "in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate". I am of the view that relisting a discussion is appropriate if the deletion discussion was inadequate (e.g, because few people contributed to it) or if the review discussion has brought new relevant facts or arguments to light. That does not seem to be the case here. I therefore refrain from relisting the discussion. This means that the "delete" closure remains in effect because there is no consensus to overturn it. – Sandstein 12:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I don't feel the closing administrator properly understood the consensus here. Both votes on each side were policy-based, with the deleters believing it a BLP violation and a one event, while the keepers feeling it was a GNG pass and the fact that coverage wasn't based on a single event makes him ineligible for BLP1E. I feel at the very least this should've been a relist. Consensus to me didn't look especially clear on either side.
Beerest 2talk20:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The closer didn't specify BLP1E (which is what most of the delete !votes were based upon) but rather the (accurate) notion that just because a topic meets the GNG doesn't mean we need to have an article on it. I'd claim however that A) that argument didn't have consensus at all and B) such an IAR closing should have an especially strong consensus. (making some updates below)
Clearly meets the GNG per the discussion, the closer and sources. So the question is if there is some other reason to delete.
The BLP1E arguments were misguided at best in any case as is stretches the definition of event to the point of breaking to have it go over a period of decades. But if there was consensous that it should apply in that discussion we'd probably go with that. But there was no such consensus in the discussion.
Arguments that the information is indiscriminate are A) not supported by the discussion in any way and B) not supported by
WP:indiscriminate as none of the 4 points even come close to applying (and no one, closer or otherwise explained how they did).
Overturn to no consensus as that discussion had none and there was no argument strong enough to justify deletion.
Hobit (
talk) 21:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC) original follow up:
Hobit (
talk)
19:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment from closing admin: I'm always happy to relist a debate if there is very little participation or the consensus is unclear, but in this case I felt there was sufficient participation and a clear enough consensus to warrant a close after the standard 7 days.
28bytes (
talk)
21:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse closure - OK, obviously I am biased here, but seriously, people are getting desperate to keep what amounts to little more than an "OMG THIS GUY IS BAD" page. BLP1E is perfectly valid, when the vast majority of coverage was routine arrest reports. 15 votes for delete, 9 for keep (discounting the two extra that were clearly the same person) isn't a clear consensus, but it is definitely weighted towards delete. And topics that meet GNG but fail BLP1E are routinely deleted.
Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)22:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Maybe I'm too literal, but I'm not seeing a single event here. It is a series of things spread out over decades. It's a single "claim" but so too is "baseball player" or some such. I'm not clear how this meets BLP1E but a baseball player doesn't. (I do get that this is a negative BLP and I can see why that matters, but I don't see how it makes BLP1E expand to such a broad thing, though IAR could make good sense here.) Further, the closer didn't cite BLP1E, so I don't see how that is relevant...
Hobit (
talk)
22:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Uh, Hobit, what part of "I'm therefore convinced that deletion is compatible with both WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG." and "I'm persuaded by the arguments that WP:BLP1E applies to this article." isn't BLP1E being cited by the closer?
Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)22:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Hmmm, apparently the part I didn't read. Opps. I will note that BLP1E wasn't mentioned before that, so it's unclear how that conclusion was reached (still not sure how I missed it though...). I'll still ask the question--how is this one event?
Hobit (
talk)
01:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Given that BLP1E is clearly mentioned twice, one of which is in the concluding sentence, I'm not sure how it could be clearer (I may be so bold to suggest that you look at it with a fresh set of eyes in a few hours after a rest, that may help). Anyway, those quibbles aside, BLP1E comes up because the only non-routine coverage is for the alleged 1000th arrest. Everything else has been a routine "he got arrested again" type piece, and it is irrelevant who carries such a piece at that point; it's still just routine, and is still just literally the same thing over and over again.
Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)01:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
What policy are you referring to here? I got the sense of an IAR deletion from the closing statement, but I'm willing to change if on-point policy exists supporting this.
Hobit (
talk)
22:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn to no consensus It doesn't seem like there is perfect consensus on what to do with the article. I think that the keeps and deleters both had strong arguments that were both based on policy. I voted keep, but I can see where the delete voters are coming from. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits22:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse deletion: The comments of the closing administrator are perfectly rationale, sensible and acceptable, I see no issue with deleting an article that passes the General Notability Guidelines, especially in the event of biographies where the notability is derived from negative coverage of embarrassing or compromising events. There are always these odd little biographies that appear, where someone passes our notability threshold by accident rather than by design and it's sensible to allow the necessary leeway to permit deletion. I suppose we could go to the trouble of trying to tweak notability policy but that adds more complexity, a sensible deletion, as was carried out in this case, backed up by a strong and well thought out rationale is the best way forward. I've no issues at all with the deletion and commend the closing administrator, 28bytes on their close. If I was into all that soppy shit, I'd give them a cookie.
Nick (
talk)
22:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse the 1E was him being arrested too many times. It was a clear violation and the consensus was correct, despite all the canvassing on both sides.
Secretaccount22:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
How are multiple arrests over several decades "one event" again? I mean, at the very least this DRV should result in the rejection of that rationale for deletion and the conceiving of a new one. We don't need to set some sort of bizarre precedent where "one event" suddenly becomes "one common thread that spans multiple events" as that effectively upends the whole basis for that part of the policy. BLP1E is about living people who are minor figures in a single event of fixed duration. People who are repeatedly covered in-depth by national media for something that keeps happening to them or something they keep doing over many years are not people for whom BLP1E is meant to apply.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.23:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
@
The Devil's Advocate and
Everyking: I think it's a mistake to take BLP1E so literally that we ignore the idea behind it, which is to protect living people who would not even begin to meet our definition of "notable" were it not for a single aspect of their lives (in this case, an arrest record for low-level infractions for trespassing and the like) that caught the media's attention. It's true that multiple arrests are by definition more than one discrete event, but we shouldn't construe BLP1E so narrowly that we require a literal "single event" and lose sight of the broader goal behind our BLP policy, of which BLP1E is a part: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. There was a strong argument among the participants of the AfD that the existence of the article violated BLP1E – if not its letter, than certainly its spirit – and that argument was not, to my reading, effectively rebutted by the (smaller number of) participants who argued the article should be kept.
28bytes (
talk)
02:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Your reliance on an alleged "spirit" of BLP1E that you admit is unsupported by its language and is unsupported by any novel consensus, and is unsupported by the sources brought forward in the discussion demonstrates that your close was abusive of process. Your "editorial judgement", you have now said you sought to enact is not within your remit when acting as administrative closer. --
Alanscottwalker (
talk)
09:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't say Earl falls under the "low-profile individual" (he made an appearance on a highly-viewed talk show to discuss his numerous arrests) so I still don't believe BLP1E applies. Basically, if he died, he would be notable? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits03:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Countless people are considered notable for a single aspect of their lives. Being a politician is generally a single aspect of a person's life, for instance. No one considers that sort of thing an event and the only reason people are behaving differently is because of some perception about this being malicious. I think this whole conversation about "protecting him" is actually a tad patronizing since it ignores the fact the guy in question has nothing really going for him in his life except his Internet fame. He is a 60-something homeless guy with an addiction problem whose spent a quarter of his life in jail for minor offenses. I am pretty sure the brightest parts of his day involve some person saying "you're that guy on the Internet!" and asking to take a picture with him or get his autograph.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.04:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Stop making dumb arguments eh! This isn't a politician, this isn't a major league baseball player, this is a habitual drunk guy that lives in doorways and gets arrested for it, who was exploited by a TV show for entertainment, and is exploited by newspapers as space filler.
John lilburne (
talk)
07:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
What is dumb is your subjective and frankly offensive assessment of major league baseball players as somehow more deserving consideration than homeless people. --
cyclopiaspeak!10:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Homeless people deserve attention, I've started organisations campaigning for housing for them, sued local governments for not providing accommodation, initiated self help groups. But what they don't need is the attention of some dweeb compiling a encyclopedia article that is no more than pointing the finger at 'that guy'. What you had was an article that says habitually drunk guy gets arrested for being habitually drunk, that isn't an encyclopedia article, it isn't even a wp article, what you have is a pile of steaming horseshit. Write the article that is a balanced coverage of this guy's life and why he is notable and most of the delete votes will change to keep. As is often said there is no deadline here, so go away and write the proper article we can wait.
John lilburne (
talk)
16:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, they kind of are more deserving. Being notable and worthy of public attention for one's physical and athletic achievements is something to be proud of. Being scrutinized by the media because one's life is so in shambles that one keeps committing misdemeanor after misdemeanor, crime after crime, is a tragedy. Mr. Earl needs help; Alcoholics Anonymous, job training, life counseling, whatever it is that this country's social services can offer to get this person back on his feet. He isn't a politician or an athlete or a musician, people regularly glued to throngs of paparazzi. He's a human being, Cyclopia, one that does not deserve to have his 15 minutes of fame cemented into an encyclopedia for all-time.
Tarc (
talk)
14:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I didn't know that there was a hierarchy where -given the same amount/quality of sources coverage- some people deserve the (admittedly odd) honour of an article while some else do not. Maybe do we think that people living on the street are less human than people playing sports? Yes, Mr. Earl needs a lot of help. How this has to do, for better or worse, with coverage in an encyclopedia is beyond me. If anything, given that we're talking about help, the article here can make more people aware of his case and perhaps it will end up attracting the help he so sorely needs.--
cyclopiaspeak!15:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The dumb argument is saying "one event" can mean a large number of events with a recurring theme. Everything else just stems from that initial stupidity. Also, stow the babble about "exploiting" and "humanity" since I am fairly certain you have not even bothered to figure out what the guy himself thinks of his notoriety.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.16:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The event is being arrested for being drunk and sleeping in doorways. Being arrested once, twice, or a thousand times does change the event. I drive 30 miles to work and 30 miles back each day. According to you that I've done it 6500+ times in the last 15 years has changed the event of me driving along the A45 into something notable.
John lilburne (
talk)
16:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
First of all, I think you've just made a "slippery-slope" argument which generally isn't helpful. But in any case, even going down that slope, your conclusion is mistaken. In the case of your example, it does mean that if you got ongoing coverage for that drive, we'd not consider it one event. Ongoing coverage of multiple events is not a single event. I think the SS argument is actually on the side of those that think this isn't an event. By your logic a person notable for playing baseball would be notable for "one event" (playing baseball) and we shouldn't cover them per BLP1E. It's not the best argument, but it does show that taken to an extreme your argument about events creates a nonsensical result.
Hobit (
talk)
18:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Many of you have already slide down the slope into a effluent tank. If what you have is someone that has played baseball in the local park for N years then they are not notable, and such a person wouldn't have an article here. Baseball players are included here simply because they play baseball each week, they are included because they are members of notable teams, and they take part in otherwise notable games. It is a different category of notable and you are confusing logical types when you assume the notability is derived simply for participating in a game of baseball. None of these guy's arrests are individually notable.
John lilburne (
talk)
20:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse - The closing admin accepted the argument that the arrests, in totality, are the "event". How narrowly or how broadly to interpret policy such as
WP:BLP1E is well within admin discretion. Re-arguing this point at Deletion Review will not gain traction, as "I disagree" is not a valid basis for filing a complaint here.
Tarc (
talk)
03:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I think this is actually a good type of situation for IAR. But in general IAR shouldn't be used when there isn't consensus behind the notion that it does improve the encyclopedia. IAR isn't an excuse for not liking the consensus (or lack thereof) but rather a way to agree to follow consensus even if the rules as written say we should not.
Hobit (
talk)
18:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Question on Closing Comment - Ignoring the above discussion on BLP1E and No Consensus/Endorse Closure, I would like to make sure if 28bytes was correct to close the debate. To first quote 28bytes from the AfD: "[...] Countering BLP1E (and
WP:BLP concerns in general) are arguments that the subject meets
WP:GNG, but as the introduction to that guideline states: "Presumed" means that significant coverage
in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates
what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. [...]" The problem I have is that 28bytes cites Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE as the main rational. While WP:GNG, which was cited does mention WP:INDISCRIMINATE, none of the users in the discussion cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE in their comments as a reason for the article to be deleted nor made a reference to the text of the policy. My question is, can the closer cite a policy that was not a part of the discussion as their reason to end the discussion? I ask as it is only the closer who has made the argument to delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (I would like to take a moment here to note that I didn't directly bring this up to 28bytes since this review was started shortly after the discussion was closed; not to mention that I just found out about the review. Thus, I would like to request time for 28bytes to respond if, and only if, the closer is not permitted to cite a policy that was not a part of the discussion as the main rational.) --
Super Goku V (
talk)
07:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
@
Super Goku V: It was not my intention to use any policies in my close that had not been explicitly cited by the participants in the AfD. The main policies and guidelines being argued in the AfD were
WP:BLP,
WP:BLP1E and
WP:GNG. In the case of the latter, I quoted some of the introduction to the GNG that I felt was relevant to the discussion, my point being that GNG explicitly allows that subjects may have multiple, reliable source references and still not merit a standalone article. That the quote includes a reference to
WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not mean that I closed the discussion on that basis; my close was based solely on weighing the BLP/BLP1E and GNG arguments which had been brought up by the participants. I believe the last sentence of the close makes clear which policies and guidelines I considered operative to the debate: I'm therefore convinced that deletion is compatible with both
WP:BLP1E and
WP:GNG.28bytes (
talk)
22:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
@
28bytes: - Alright, but I am unsure if what you are saying is what you mean due to the beginning sentence in your response just now. You are saying that you mentioned WP:INDISCRIMINATE in the closing, but did not use it when you closed the discussion, is that correct? As a second question, and somewhat unrelated to this discussion, when you said that "this subject does not merit a stand-alone article," was it an throwaway sentence or did you mean that there could be a combined article of some kind or type? --
Super Goku V (
talk) 02:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Recovered from previous revision.
George Ho (
talk)
06:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
@
Super Goku V: I'm not sure how I can be more clear: the close was based on my analysis of the WP:BLP(1E) and WP:GNG arguments. You seem to be suggesting that closers shouldn't be allowed to quote from the policies and guidelines that the participants in the deletion discussion have brought up if the quote includes any reference to another policy. I don't think that's a reasonable restriction to put on XfD closers.
28bytes (
talk)
15:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
@
28bytes: "It was not my intention to 'use' any policies in my close that had not been explicitly cited by the participants in the AfD." I was referring to the word use in your sentence since it threw me off on what you meant, though I understand now. My problem is that I am 'still' unsure if the closer cite a policy that was not a part of the discussion. You are implying that an admin is allowed to do so, but I remember reading that the closer must make due with what arguments that they have, not the ones they wish to have. The problem is that we never had the in-depth discussion on
WP: what Wikipedia is not and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, nor did we have one on how far presumed goes. When you said, "this deletion discussion, has, from my reading of it, concluded that this subject does not merit a stand-alone article," I am not sure if it is taken on the basis of presumed or if we are still referring to WP:BLP1E. --
Super Goku V (
talk)
02:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
@
Super Goku V: The point is that the GNG explicitly says that multiple reliable sources are necessary but not sufficient for a topic to merit a standalone article. In other words, the GNG does not trump BLP or BLP1E, if those policies apply. The question then becomes, do they apply? Those favoring deletion argued that they do apply, those opposing argued that they do not. I found the arguments that they do apply to be more convincing, and more in line with policy, and I closed the debate accordingly. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up WP:INDISCRIMINATE; I have already explained that it was merely part of a larger quote from the GNG and not the basis for the close. I supposed I could have redacted or elided the part where the GNG mentions it, but I assumed that people would be able to tell that it was a passing reference within a quote and not the basis for the close. Are we on the same page now, at least on that point?
28bytes (
talk)
06:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn and relist This is a super!vote, and one that also introduced an argument not present in the discussion, as
Super Goku V (
talk·contribs) above correctly notices. Also: the BLP1E reading is also fatally flawed: there is no single event that the (very well sourced) material shown in the discussion would be able to be redirected/merged, in principle. Coverage was about the person. Saying that a string of similar events can be conglomerated as BLP1E is akin to saying that
Mick Jagger is a BLP1E because, well, all he's known for is singing in a string of records and concerns. --
cyclopiaspeak!10:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse closure. 28bytes' closure was a reasonable interpretation of the AfD. The question isn't whether you agree with 28bytes' interpretation, but whether his interpretation was within the reasonable bounds of admin discretion. It was. The application of
WP:BLP1E is reasonable (although not a slam-dunk), and I don't see any procedural reason to overturn 28bytes' proper closure. MastCellTalk07:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
@
MastCell: To make sure I understand this, as this is getting a bit confusing, the closing user can cite a policy that was not a part of the discussion in the closer, is that correct? --
Super Goku V (
talk)
07:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
From the closing comment, "[...] A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates
what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.}} [...]" WP:INDISCRIMINATE wasn't cited or mentioned in the AfD until 28bytes brought it up in the closer. I wanted to confirm if the closer is allowed to cite a policy that wasn't a part of the discussion in the way that occurred. --
Super Goku V (
talk)
02:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
In that case, the answer is
mu. The quote you mention comes verbatim from
WP:GNG. The sense of the quote was clear in 28bytes' original (unexcerpted) close, and bears no resemblance to the way you've presented it here. I see that 28bytes has already explained this to you above (
[1],
[2]). MastCellTalk22:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
-_- I have been asking if that was allowed and wanted to make sure that it was allow, especially since they left it cited in their close. Since you said, "his interpretation was within the reasonable bounds of admin discretion," I was asking your thoughts since you seemed to know if it would be allowed or not and I quoted the area in the original closing as you asked for me to clarify. To add emphasis to what I said, "I wanted to confirm if the closer is allowed to cite a policy that wasn't a part of the discussion in the way that occurred." I would still prefer a direct answer from an uninvolved admin, if you would do so. (If you have an issue with the first question, then here is my expanded question: Is the closing user when they are ending the discussion allowed to cite or link to a policy in the way that occurred in 28bytes' closer, even if it was not a part of the discussion or mentioned until then?) --
Super Goku V (
talk)
17:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Note This discussion was recently
reopened by the original closing administrator after I had closed under IAR. I'm further placing the article under
special BLP enforcement as deleting the information on Mr. Earl could deprive him of attention and income that would cause him harm by impairing a source of income during the holiday season.
Jclemens (
talk)
07:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
What the fuck do you think you're playing at? Not only did this DRV categorically not vote to overturn the deletion, your reasoning is ridiculous; since when was Wikipedia a platform to promote people and enable them to earn more money? Has someone representing Earl been paying you or something?
Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)10:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I've vacillated about this one several times. Like others here I'd be tempted to endorse it, but it's not completely clear-cut. The point that the close was not entirely based on arguments to be found in the discussion does look like a valid one. I think the perfect solution would have been if 28bytes had raised his point in the discussion, so the next sysop to come along would have had a complete debate to close.
I'm also a bit concerned that Wikipedia's BLP1E rules are being used to protect criminals from the consequences of their actions. I don't really approve of that. To protect suspected criminals seems absolutely right and reasonable, but once someone's been convicted, we're in a different place entirely: they're a criminal, their conviction is a matter of public record and it's right to disseminate information about it for the protection of those who, you know, aren't criminals.
And finally I'm concerned that this is another point-scoring exercise by a Wikipedia Review successor-site. With closes like this one, we're allowing and encouraging people who were kicked off-Wiki to continue their various moral crusades by alternative means. I don't approve; it's hard to fail at Wikipedia (you've got to be really dumb about how things work here to do that) and those few who've managed it don't deserve a voice here.
Overall I'm going to say that while 28bytes' close was understandable in the context of the debate, and it was within the discretion that DRV traditionally gives to sysops, there are legitimate concerns. It's not right to use the word "overturn", and it won't be productive to relist while Wikipediocracy users and sockpuppets are interested in it, so I'll go with restore.
As a final point, please will the closer of this DRV take into account the effect of Wikipediocracy-canvassing on a biographical article. There are some views and opinions present in this debate that shouldn't be heard.—
S MarshallT/
C09:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
We're not talking about someone who regularly goes out and beats people up, stabs them, or otherwise murdering them. We're talking about someone who has a serious drinking problem, and is almost certainly homeless; one of those is clearly now a medical issue, and the other is not entirely in his control either. I simply cannot therefore agree with your stance of "He's a criminal, so he's not worth protecting" - that's just wrong.
Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)09:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
If anyone is concerned with the behavior of editors on and/or off-wiki, there are venues more appropriate than DRV to pursue them in.
Tarc (
talk)
13:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Also, yet more bullshit canvassing claims are being spouted by someone desperate to belittle others; at no point has it been posted that "all members should go and join the AfD and DRV debates". AfDing it was my idea, and every member is free to do as they please; you should note that The Devil's Advocate is a WO member and yet hasn't followed the "party line" that you're claiming exists.
Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)10:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Oh, please. It's a site run by people who're badly butthurt about Wikipedia, for the benefit of people who're badly butthurt about Wikipedia. Its business is drama-mongering about Wikipedia. To these saddos, getting a Wikipedia BLP deleted is an achievement to be proud of, and this is used to justify the site's existence and focus. And you're trying to pretend there's no "party line"? Riiiiiigght.—
S MarshallT/
C10:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Considering the number of Wikipediocracy posters that have participated in this debate, all of whom are editors in good standing, I would strongly encourage S Marshall to strike those personal attacks that he just made. —
Scott•talk10:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Considering that the WO thread about this article was happy to collage images of
lynching with quotes by me and
The Devil's Advocate from this DRV, and was also happy to engage in
doxing of
Jclemens, I instead thank
S Marshall for calling a spade a spade. Yes, there are also decent people on WO (as Alison, who removed the images from the WO thread) and the odd reasonable talk, but the general assessment is quite correct.--
cyclopiaspeak!11:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
By that logic of "calling a spade a spade", you participate in a project notorious for hosting racism, sexism, historical revisionism, pseudoscience advocacy, religious kookery, and paid promotional materials. Why would you do that? —
Scott•talk11:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The difference is that what you say about WP, while somewhat correct, is explicitly against the stated goals of the project. While it seems that outing and cyberbullying of editors who do not share the WO holy war against the Wiki of All Evils is a substantial and welcomed part of what WO is about. Granted, I see there are at least some opposing views in that thread, including yours. But I also notice that, in the same thread, you oppose these actions only because of their possible tactical failure in this DRV. Quite funny that you name people who politely call out WO "mouth-frothers" while instead people who compare an AfD to lynching are just told it is a "bad idea". --
cyclopiaspeak!12:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I converse with the other posters on WO based on my knowledge of their opinions and the way they operate. Using the same principle here on my first encounter of S Marshall, I have filed him into the category of loud noises with the vocabulary of a fourteen-year-old. If you think that his comments about "really dumb... butthurt... saddos" are polite, you have a problem. Your prejudices about WO have also led you to misread my comments there; that's also your problem, not mine. —
Scott•talk12:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse closure, specifially per MastCell: The question isn't whether you agree with 28bytes' interpretation, but whether his interpretation was within the reasonable bounds of admin discretion. It was. —
Scott•talk10:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse On my reading of the close 28bytes didn't rely on
WP:INDISCRIMINATE as his rationale. Instead he quoted language from
GNG that referred (among other things) to it, in order to explain that the article meeting the GNG would not necessarily mean it should be kept and therefore that the arguments focusing on this did not rebut the
BLP1E and
BLP arguments.
Neljack (
talk)
11:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn Claiming BPL1E applies to individuals known for multiple events is insane. A second insane argument cited by the closing admin is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Can someone please explain how this article in any way resembles a summary-only descriptions of fiction, a lyrics database, an excessive listing of statistics or an log of software updates? Closing admins are supposed to ignore invalid arguments. 28bytes is normally pretty level-headed, but I don't see how this can possibly be construed to be a reasonable close. Let's face it: this is a clear and obvious example of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk)
11:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Can someone please explain how this article in any way resembles a summary-only descriptions of fiction, a lyrics database, an excessive listing of statistics or an log of software updates? Yes. You're starting to create the conditions for a database of people who have been arrested multiple times, if being arrested multiple times (and not the reason behind the arrests) is a claim to notability. As Black Kite indicates below, if you really start going down the route of providing an entry for "the most arrested man in Lexington" do we have an entry for every person who is the most arrested man in their town, or do we restrict our entries to those who have been arrested, what was it, 1000 times or more ?
It's trivia, it's the last item on the news at night, it's the And finally item, newspaper column inch filler, it's padding, and it's fundamentally not encyclopedic in nature, any more than the Yellow Pages is truly encyclopedic.
Nick (
talk)
12:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
That's a gross misinterpretation of policy. The article is prose. It doesn't come close to resembling an index. This is a classic
WP:IDONTLIKE situation which is why those in favor of deletion are bending over backwards to twist policy around to mean things that they don't.
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk)
15:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn. Article meets general notability guideline and is not a case of "one event" notability. The subject has been arrested more than 1000 times, and has become somewhat of a folk hero, not unlike
Leatherman (vagabond). Suggest we get a picture and expand the article.
JehochmanTalk13:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse. (am I supposed to mention that I came here through the ANI thread?) I can easily understand that others in good faith don't think BLP1E applies in this case, even if I disagree. But this was a proper interpretation of consensus at the AFD, and doesn't violate policy, so there are no grounds for overturning. --
Floquenbeam (
talk)
14:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse - Closing admin's rationale was well grounded in policy. This was obviously a borderline case either way, but 28bytes' rationale is sound.
Resolute14:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse- Reasonable reading of consensus. The community is allowed to make editorial decisions in borderline cases like this one, and I think the closing administrator made a reasonable judgment of the result of the community discussion.
ReykYO!15:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn and (shudder) relist. I did not participate in the original AfD, but reading it now, I cannot agree that the original close, while thoughtfully argued, reflected a consensus of the participating editors. Nor can I say that Jclemens's close of the DRV, while also thoughtfully argued, represented a distillation of consensus. Both of these were opinions, joining the others expressed in the discussion. As far as I can see, there has been no consensus. On the merits, I don't think BLP1E is applicable to someone who has been the subject of repeated coverage in multiple media, including national media, over a number of years. I also share S Marshall's concerns, expressed above, about the overuse of the "BLP" mantra to attack certain types of sourced content. There may be other values at stake, but the discussion has not reflected any broad agreement over which way those values cut.--
Arxiloxos (
talk)
15:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn to no consensus BLP1E does not apply to this case in any way, shape, or form, and it was raised by only a handful of editors in the AfD. 28bytes also threw in his own reasons for deleting that were not mentioned at all in the discussion. No one really questioned that the article passed WP:GNG, but rather invoked some other reason for deletion and none of them invoked WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It does not apply in this case anyway. So basically, 28bytes favored a small minority of editors invoking a very novel interpretation of policy and added in his own reasons for deleting the article.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.16:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The idea that I "added in [my] own reasons for deleting the article" is completely false. I weighed the WP:BLP(1E) and WP:GNG arguments put forth by the participants, period. I've made this clear
severaltimes. It's fine if you don't agree with the close, but please do not mischaracterize it.
28bytes (
talk)
17:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Where was the WP:INDISCRIMINATE vote? Also, how exactly did you weigh those arguments? Nearly every editor voting keep firmly rejected BLP1E because the coverage spanned a decade and included multiple events, which is exactly the type of situation where BLP1E is explicitly stated not to apply. The number of those rejecting BLP1E was greater than those invoking it or defending it. Of those who did not invoke BLP1E, their reasons were either undefined, not based in policy, or refuted over the course of the discussion. How you came to conclude that any consensus existed eludes me. I find it especially incredible that an admin of your standing would conclude BLP1E was the consensus.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.17:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The close was not based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it was based on weighing the WP:BLP(1E) and WP:GNG arguments. I've explained this repeatedly. Please read
what I've already written. If you're suggesting I should have "weighed" the merits of the BLP1E argument by counting the number of people who cited it, I'm afraid that it doesn't work that way.
28bytes (
talk)
17:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Wow, you are just picking the arguments that you wish to address, like you just picked the arguments you agreed with in the AfD. That the keep votes overwhelmingly rejected BLP1E per the very reasons the policy gives for rejecting such an argument is what matters.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.17:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
endorse I was not a participant in the discussion, but it seems to me that the burst of watercooler news coverage is reasonably interpreted as
WP:ONEEVENT. I also have to say that the precedent of similar cases in the past of
people being the subject of freak show publicity is that we don't stigmatize them just because the media and internet make a fuss over them.
Mangoe (
talk)
17:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse Quite frankly I'd endorse just about any argument to delete this terrible article. Under no conditions should we be hosting negative articles about borderline-notable living people. If the rules don't permit deletion for this reason they should be modified to allow it. This article adds infinitesimally to the sum total of human knowledge while disparaging a poor person who is fed on by media vultures when the news gets slow. We are better than this. ThemFromSpace18:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
While I fully understand and sympathize with the principle of what you are saying about the article, I think that is a bit misguided. It appears he is well-liked in the Lexington area and on the Internet largely because of his arrest record (he is also apparently a good fella), odd as that may seem to you. He also seems to like the attention it gets him from what I have read of interviews. That aspect was not really made clear in earlier versions of the article, but I think
the version after my changes prior to the DRV being re-opened make create a more sympathetic image of him. More could be done to make it a sympathetic bio that accurately reflects how positively he is perceived and I think it would be good to allow that.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.21:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn. Interpreting BLP1E to apply here is a dramatic overreach of the policy and is not valid. A "single" behavior pattern carried out over more than 1000 iterations is in no way the same thing as a single event. Subject clearly meets
WP:GNG.
—chaos5023 (
talk)
21:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn and relist. Closing admin claims "sufficient participation and a clear enough consensus" here, yet in closing rationale used the spectre of sockpuppetry to "instead focus on the weight of the argument." I find that change difficult to reconcile, especially after the misapplication of BLP1E. --
Norvy(talk)21:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn because WP:BLP1E does not apply to a clear years-long series of events, and so was incorrectly invoked for the close. In addition, the Internet-glomming-on makes this notable on those grounds as well.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
22:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn to no consensus, and relist. A supervote occurs when an admin replaces their discretion for that of other editors. Here, there was no consensus on how to excercize that discretion, and BLP1E, by its terms, does not mandate such a closure. Thus, the close was a supervote. The reason for no consensus was made clear by the sources such as Newsweek, which showed that the person was noted for 'songs, media, and t-shirts' made with this person as their subject. (See past examples in a similar vein:
Emperor Norton and
Captain Streeter). Relist to flesh out the other issues of harm and unencyclopedic material.
Alanscottwalker (
talk)
23:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Who? The past examples, which is why they're called past examples? And the difference that they're dead matters, how? Certainly not for making their lives "one event."
Folk hero come in many different forms, and their multiple run-ins with the lawman are often part of that. --
Alanscottwalker (
talk)
08:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn-- there was no consensus The BLP related arguments are not germain. The article as significant sourcing and thus meets the GNG.01:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dlohcierekim (
talk •
contribs)
Overturn - per Beyond My Ken and others correctly noting the general notability of the article. This should not even have been nominated for deletion. BLP argument is specious, in my view. Let's make this right.
Jusdafax02:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse. First, {{DRV is not AFD2}}. On to the substance, I see a perfectly reasonable closure citing participants' arguments about BLP1E (and why it applies), and then further citing policy that GNG is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for an article. While, technically, it could have been closed as "no consensus", the delete was a reasonable choice, and in line with a common-sense approach that in close calls, BLP should err on the side of caution.
No such user (
talk)
04:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse Most of the "overturn" votes seem to be based on AfD arguments, rather than on the correctness of the closure of the AfD. The closing seems to be an entirely legitimate appraisal of the arguments, and appropriately leans on the side of caution with a BLP.
First Light (
talk)
04:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I think that writing a complete biographical article on Earl is not possible and that this article should be deleted. (
Arrest record of Henry Earl also feels inappropriate.) I need to study the BLP1E arguments more closely before making a bolded recommendation.
Flatscan (
talk)
05:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I think that BLP1E is a stretch, but overall BLP, roughly along those lines, justifies deletion. A new section and shortcut for "known for one thing" is a possible way forward.
Flatscan (
talk)
05:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn to no consensus. There was clearly a wide range of opinion, with Warden making cogent arguments. By contrast, I cannot make any sense out of the closing admin's train of thought. Unlike most of the deleters who made an invalid BLP1E argument, the closer says instead that having actual sources (WP:GNG) only creates a 'presumption', which he can overturn by saying that Wikipedia is not an 'indiscriminate collection of information'. But nowhere does he explain what is indiscriminate information - though I should assume that how the homeless are treated, the fact that the county spends much more money jailing this guy every other night than they would giving him free housing, is something that should never be covered, whereas, say, the diamond collar a celebrity buys for her dog would automatically be notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about the wealthy of the world - we know that whole towns in Pakistan are rarely notable, for example.
Wnt (
talk)
05:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The same Warden who has been abusing Wikipedia for years, and whose main account has been blocked for sockpuppetry, you mean? And if it's a proper town, it WILL be notable; just because there isn't an article on it doesn't make it non-notable. Considering those two fundamental errors in your statement there, it's safe to say the rest is a load of rubbish.
Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)08:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Ad hominem arguments are fallacious. Warden could be the worst wikipedian ever, or the best, and in both cases this would have nothing to do with the value of a specific point he makes.--
cyclopiaspeak!10:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Either people's actions mean they forfeit their right to a voice in this debate, or they don't. But neither of you can have it both ways. Perhaps it's true that, by sockpuppetry or misjudgment, Colonel Warden and/or Jclemens have lost their right to be heard in this debate----in which case the Wikipediocracy people have too, haven't they? Alternatively, if we're prepared to listen to Colonel Warden and/or Jclemens, then we also have to listen to all the white knights from Wikipediocracy who're coming galloping to the rescue of the world's most-arrested man, because, yanno, it's a BLP so delete zomg!—
S MarshallT/
C11:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
He really is quite widely reported as the "World's most arrested man". That's repeated in places like the New York Post, the Huffington Post, and the Daily Mirror. Do those sources fill me with confidence? Not really; it's all churnalism from the original source, which is
The Smoking Gun. I'd want a discussion about reliability of sources before calling him that in the article. But, "complete and utter bollocks"? Really?—
S MarshallT/
C13:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
It's pretty sad that a 42-year-old man is using phrases like "white knights" in a BLP discussion. Please, save that stuff for 4chan or whatever other website you picked it up from. —
Scott•talk13:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
What a contemptible comment. White knights are not a new phrase, but even if they were, there is nothing about someone's age that should disallow them from using a common phrase. You are calling for discrimination against an editor simply because you know one seemingly innocuous biographical fact about him. Just as you are calling for discrimination against a kind of article because it is about someone poor.
Wnt (
talk)
14:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I see there's also some complain about Warden above, but I don't care what that is either. When I look at whether an article should be kept I'm looking at the article, not a bunch of dossiers. I don't care who is what age, what sex, and I don't have the Ph.D. in Astrology required to recognize suspected sockpuppets by behavioral evidence. When I read over the comments, his stood out as particularly reasonable, and so I recognize them as such.
Wnt (
talk)
14:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I don't believe it's really a comment about my age, so much as a veiled threat or warning that the Wikipediocrats will dox me if I carry on. Which does seems likely enough; but if I was concerned about that, I wouldn't put my name and date of birth on my userpage.—
S MarshallT/
C14:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
No, it is a direct statement that I think you are acting childishly, which surprises me given the age you state on your user page. Hope that helps. —
Scott•talk15:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
It's cute to see people like Scott Martin, who babble of ethics on- and off-wiki, resorting to insults, veiled threats and thoughtful arguments as "complete and utter bollocks". Makes you think how trustworthy they are. --
cyclopiaspeak!15:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I see nothing "childish" about S Marshall's responses. From the time of the Fae case, ArbCom has been misinterpreting the guidance people came up with here about outing, but the text is nonetheless quite clear and well-justified in telling people to avoid "opposition research". It is a distraction at best, and the notion that you can take some number off a piece of paper and just because you know it about somebody they start losing rights -- that is the sick core of NSAism. And let's be clear; anyone offsite looking up somebody's name in a directory and posting "dox" is indeed a mere infant pretending to be a secret agent in the shadow of the NSA building.
Wnt (
talk)
15:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Having read through the referenced articles carefully, I agree that the GNG is met. However, the GNG is not a guarantee for inclusion, though exceptions are rare. Participants chose to ignore meeting the GNG as a dominating consideration, and WP:Consensus can overrule any guideline. I remain of the view that the closer closed within admin discretion, but given the strong interest, I support a relist. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
12:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse per MastCell, Resolute and others - the close was a reasonable reflection of consensus and policy-based argument in the deletion discussion. This is not the venue to re-argue the deletion case. --
Anthonyhcole (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
12:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse. The closer correctly cited the actual text of the
GNG's fifth bullet-point which says that coverage creates "an assumption, not a guarantee", that a subject should be included.
JohnCD (
talk)
14:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
People above are saying things like "The article has significant sourcing and thus meets the GNG" to imply that the close was wrong. I am countering that line by pointing out that the closer was correct to realise, and cite the actual GNG guideline as saying, that coverage does not necessarily mean there should be an article.
JohnCD (
talk)
15:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Then you misaprehend the argument. That it passes GNG is basically undisputed -- the issue is whether the closer nonetheless, had discretion to delete, given thier rationale.
Alanscottwalker (
talk)
15:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
What I am saying is that the words he cited: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have stand-alone article" give him just that discretion.
JohnCD (
talk)
16:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
That does not give the closer discretion, otherwise admins could just delete, here, without a
WP:Consensus. The AfD closer is there to act on the editors' discretion not thier own. If they want to excericize thier own discretion, they partcipate in the discussion not close. --
Alanscottwalker (
talk)
16:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The meaning of that policy shouldn't be to give editors or admin discretion. It's true that there are a few other policies that might interfere with the usual GNG standard; most notably it talks about a "standalone article", suggesting that something can be notable enough for an article but still be better to merge if it is convenient to do so. That doesn't mean that whatever political focus group someone can line up is free to delete everything it doesn't like!
Wnt (
talk)
18:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I did not say it gives an admin discretion to delete off his own bat without consensus; but it does give him discretion to interpret the results of "more in-depth discussion" such as an AfD as showing consensus that an article should not be kept even though sources meet the GNG, and that is what happened here.
JohnCD (
talk)
19:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
It does not give the admin power to interpret the discussion, contrary to policy or to find a consensus where none exists. If the admin is going to judge it as meeting the GNG, then they have to give specific consensus based, policy based, reason for deletion, nonetheless. That's not what happened here; no specifically applicable policy based reason was given, nor was it founded in a consensus on that policy.
Alanscottwalker (
talk)
22:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse - the majority of the voters were using the arguments suggested. And just to clarify the
wp:BLP1E argument, a man being arrested for any of the things he has been arrested for is not notable. Therefore, and crucially, none of the individual arrests were notable. The only notable thing is the sum total of non-notable events in the same way that adding individual cards to a house of cards is not notable even if you have a notable house of cards at the end because you've added so many. Or a person who is only notable for running across the Sahara getting a new piece on how they are running across the Sahara every night would still only be notable for running across the Sahara. Therefore he is only notable for one thing - the sum total of non-notable events in the same way that the creator of the world's biggest house of cards would be notable for that whether or not they put out a press release each time they added a card. Thus it is believed by many of those voting that it fit the spirit of
WP:BLP1E. The (second and final) closure decision was reiterating this and the part of the
wp:GNG guideline that said that notable was a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Neonchameleon (
talk)
17:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
But that "analysis" is unsupported by the sources. The subject is not notable for just the arrests according to the sources. If an argument such as yours is without evidence, it is mere wish, guess or caprice. --
Alanscottwalker (
talk)
17:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
It is BLP1E not BLP1T. Being notable for one thing that spans over many events is not the same as being notable for one event. The spirit of BLP1E is that we do not create an article on someone involved in your typical flash-in-the-pan news story. People can say this is about admin discretion, but admin discretion does not mean any admin is allowed to alter the meaning of policy by fiat. Changing the meaning of a "single event" to mean "a single recurring theme in a person's life spanning many events" is to completely upend the meaning of the policy itself.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.17:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
This is straying way too far into re-arguing the AfD, which isn't what DRV is for, but the argument made there was that we aren't considering each individual arrest as an "event", but rather that his notability is from being a multiple-arrestee, i.e. the totality of the arrests is the proverbial "event". That you disagree is duly noted, but more editors are of an opposing point of view.
Tarc (
talk)
17:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
But that's the point. One event means one event, not one class of events. If we consider a totality of events as a single event, then almost every BLP is a BLP1E. A politician is not notable for each single thing they did in Congress, and many of these things would not be notable per se: they are notable because of the whole sum of their career, and the resulting coverage. Same here. It is insane to arm-twist this so far, and, to put it frankly, also the people who support a 1E interpretation know it well: the argument is done in bad faith just because people do not want the article here, and that's the best straw they can grasp. Invoking IAR would be more honest. --
cyclopiaspeak!17:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
That's a bit
WP:OTHERSTUFF-ish, but again, he isn't notable for being arrested here in 2003, arrested there in 2004, and so on, his notability is as a person arrested lots of times. We're looking at the apple pie; you're looking at the apples, flour, cinnamon, and sugar. Also, a politician isn't notable for the sum of his career, he is notable simply because of the office held. A newly-elected Senator could be run over by a bus the day after the election, and still pass the project's notability criteria.
Tarc (
talk)
17:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
DRV can be used when "someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly" and consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments, so the strength of the argument for deletion is a factor to consider here. The argument for a BLP1E deletion requires a novel interpretation of the policy that has no precedent. Being arrested multiple times over the course of one's life is not an event, unless you want to completely upend the meaning of the term "event" for the purposes of this policy. Every keep argument made a strong policy-based argument as to why BLP1E did not apply and those arguing for BLP1E were pushing a novel interpretation without pointing out how the policy actually supported that interpretation or even providing a cogent IAR basis for that interpretation. 28bytes picked favorites and that is all there is to it. It was a supervote.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.18:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
It isn't novel to employ common sense. Mr. Earl isn't the subject of news sources because he was arrested for public intoxication, disorder, etc...in this or that or the other date & time. He is the subject of news sources due to the unusually high number of times he has been arrested over the years. Do you get it? The arrests aren't notable in and of themselves; the totality is. If he were arrested only 4-5 times over the years, he would be an otherwise unknown individual. His fame, as it were, is due to a single factor; the number of times arrested, hence
WP:BLP1E. That is the argument accepted by the closing admin.
Tarc (
talk)
19:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
You can repeat your argument however many times you wish, but it does not change the simple fact that an "event" is not a reference to a series of events as a whole or otherwise. The totality of events still means there is more than one event in play with regards to his notability. What you are doing here is wikilawyering. BLP1E is about people who only come up within the context of a single news story, more specifically it is about low-profile individuals who are not central players in a news story receiving in-depth, persistent coverage in reliable sources. Mr. Earl is the sole focus of several national news stories over the course of at least a decade. Coverage is not limited to "he got arrested again", but consists of several stories discussing how his arrest record made him a local icon and internet celebrity and several stories about certain significant arrests that elaborate on his history of arrests. These are the exact circumstances where BLP1E is said not to apply. It is a novel interpretation of BLP1E to say a series of events with a common theme should actually be treated as one event.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.22:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
You can repeat your argument ad nauseam as well, but it won't make an individual with 15 minutes of fame magically become notable for a series of non-notable events, or be able to overcome a straight-forward application of
WP:BLP1E. Like many DRVs, it comes down to a matter of policy interpretation, and the people on the losing side being rather ungracious in defeat. That will be my last word on the matter.
Tarc (
talk)
23:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
(E/c) Unfortunately, it appears that some have not really read the sources. There is nothing to suggest that the subject is unique for just getting arrested multiple times or that Lexington is a unique arresting prone environment. Other people have no doubt gotten arrested many, many times, in city after city, and no source really notices them. The subject was deemed notable by sources for other things that happened, yes in part related to a 42 year record of multiple incidents, but that is not the only reason why national and regional press became involved writing about the subject. And yes to make "one event" of such a subject is so far out of the realm of the resonable use of language, that it evidences arbitrary and unsupported reasoning. Follow the sources.
Alanscottwalker (
talk)
19:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Tarc and others - I think the underlying question is whether there is community consensus that BLP1E be interpreted in this manner. This is a novel interpretation. I think it's a reasonable change to consider, but I do not agree that this is a good test case or precedent for a policy change. I would rather we have a more general policy discussion and then fit the results of that back onto this case.
You see, that right there is a big part of the problem with this discussion. People on one side just assuming that everyone who thinks there should be an article has some malicious motivation or is just uncaring towards the subject as though such a BLP can only be harmful in intent and effect no matter its contents. That could not be further from the truth and I would like to ask those of you saying this type of shit to please shut the fuck up.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.06:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I do assume that everyone who thinks there should be an article is uncaring toward the subject. I assume that because it's true. I know that it's true because the arguments to keep mostly devolve to citing our own internal notability rules, which unlike BLP and BLP1E have no moral dimension. Profanity and so forth is not a good way to get me to stop believing true things, sorry. Intent is not at issue here.
Herostratus (
talk)
16:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
It's either that ("everyone who thinks there should be an article is uncaring toward the subject") or some editors want to turn Wikipedia into a tabloid. In this case it may be both.
First Light (
talk)
17:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
You assume that because you are presumptuous and guided by emotion, not because you have some greater insight into the hearts and minds of random strangers on the Internet. The problem is that there are too many people just like you who are so set on seeing this article one way that it makes a rationale discourse nigh impossible.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.07:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Weak overturn: I'm not convinced 1E applies here, as the coverage has been ongoing for ten years, and it's coverage that Earl does not find too onerous either. That said, the limited amount makes me pause for thought as it may symbolise marginal notability. In addition, the idea that BLP doesn't apply once you get a criminal record is simply untrue; BLP applies to all living people, even people like
Ian Brady. Sceptre(
talk)05:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn. It's just impossible to rationally fit this under the actual terms of the BLP1E policy. One event means one event, not one concept, reason or whatever. In particular, it doesn't mean "one basis for notability." There may well be a case that the subject doesn't really possess encyclopedic notability -- just like people with gigantic home Christmas light displays, people who declare themselves Pope, perennial political candidates with fringe platforms who garner habdfuls of votes, etc. -- but BLP1E is not an appropriate rubric to decide such cases. BLP1E sets standards for determining when the person should be subsumed within the event, not for eliminating coverage entirely.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (
talk)
00:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
for determining when the person should be subsumed within the event There is your article: Alcohol and other drug addicts that end up homeless gather loads of arrests due to public intoxication, sleeping rough in doorways, being obnoxious to the general citizenry, and not being wanted in 'our' neighbourhood. This guy is an example of all of that. If you had such an article there wouldn't be this problem. Unfortunately it is not an article that any of you are capable of writing, and therefor you are inappropriately elevating the example to that of article status. This guy is in the news for one thing being arrested multiple times because he is drunk and homeless. We can see that this is a one event thing because if this were a public figure then his/her arrests for drunkenness would be one part of a bigger biography, here the arrests are the whole article and in all other situations would be mostly deleted as WP:UNDUE, but if that is done it would remove the entire basis for the article, and thus we see clearly that the article is about one thing.
John lilburne (
talk)
10:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn and relist. I have read and re-read
the AfD discussion, including the concerns about offwiki canvassing and comments by anons. However, I'm just not seeing the discussion resolving to a consensus for deletion. Instead, I would have closed this as "No consensus, defaults to Keep". Considering all the recent controversy, the best option here would probably be to relist the AfD. There's sure to be a large number of comments from a wide section of the community, so hopefully a consensus will be easier to judge on a second round. --
Elonka10:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn to no consensus There was no consensus to delete. The article's subject clearly passes the general notability guidelines, and does not violate
WP:BLP1E, since it wasn't just one event he got coverage for. He has received coverage over the years in multiple major news sources. The closing administrator's closing statement sounds like a
WP:supervote, he claiming he can just ignore the
WP:GNG. There was no clear consensus in the discussion to ignore the GNG, it all looking like a case of
WP:I don't like it to me.
DreamFocus14:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn to keep. Per Dream's analyses above, the keep votes in the AfD were based on policy and an accurate assessment of the ongoing coverage in the sources. Also, having devoted quite a bit of time to helping old people and drug addicts over the years, Im in agreement with Advocate that the presence of this article is more likely to help the subject than hurt. It's not all that collegial to make unequivocal suggestions that those who want to keep this article don't care about the subject. Beware moral certainty!
FeydHuxtable (
talk)
18:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn to keep? There is absolutely no way that is a valid conclusion from that AfD. No consensus is a valid reading, but a clear consensus to keep? No chance. Most of the votes on both sides were policy-based, disregarding those of the IP-hopper of course.
Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)21:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Trying to meet you halfway, I can agree several intelligent AfD voters sincerely considered BLP1e or just plain BLP justified deletion. But for me, there was sufficient evidence based reasoning to almost entirely discount the delete votes and thus close the AfD as keep. 1E doesn't apply when theres been successive coverage over the years for different events, and for different reasons – both for the arrests and for becoming an internet celebrity. I don't know enough about the specifics or American culture to confirm Clemens is correct that deletion hurts the subject financially – though I know Clemens is an American and a man of considerable experience, so Im happy to trust his judgment here. I do have the experience to be confident that Advocate is correct in saying keeping the article is likely to benefit the subject psychologically. So for me, the spirit of BLP actually favours keeping the article. Im not saying we should keep articles because they benefit the subject regardless of notability, but as the subject clearly passes GNG, there's no reason to delete. That said, Id not be unhappy with an overturn to no consensus – sensible editors like Dream have called it that way, and it may be they've got the best handle on this.
FeydHuxtable (
talk)
22:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Just want to clarify that I do not see any indication this Wikipedia article has had or will have any effect on the man positive or negative. My comments concerned the reality that attitudes regarding him on the Internet and in Lexington are generally positive. So the idea that any attention would be negative and harmful towards him and thus something from which he needs to be protected, is misguided.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.00:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Each acting role is different, whereas each dressed Turkey is the same, and each arrest for being drunk is the same. In most cases he'll be being picked up by the same cops, from the same sidewalk, and delivered to the same drunk cell, processed by the same custody Sargent, brought up in the morning before the same Judge, given the same public defender, and sent to the same jail. This particular Turkey doesn't even have the variety of being stuffed one year with nuts and the next with lemons.
John lilburne (
talk)
16:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Recommendation to closing admin - I believe we have No consensus as to whether BLP1E covers this situation; I recommend following up on the BLP1E policy talk page and Village Pump to discuss as to whether BLP1E covers such a series of events. That general question is not best resolved here and now in this particular article or DRV. Policy changes must happen on the policy pages. I am going to initiate those policy discussions.
Georgewilliamherbert (
talk)
03:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn to no consensus/ relist. The subject is not eligible for BLP1E and I don't see the consensus for deletion, especially considering the offwiki canvassing.
Cavarrone20:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
There was and is offsite discussion. That site has a historical leaning toward deleting BLPs. I think that falls under "votestacking" and "stealth canvasing" Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged.... I think it's plain that CANVAS applies here and said canvasing had an impact on the AfD. The closer made note of that in fact.
Hobit (
talk)
20:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I really, really dislike this line of argument, as it smacks of trying to get the result overturned on a technicality rather than on merit. Some people here seem to have some magically fanciful notion that an XfD/DRV/etc can only attain its purest, untainted form if those who comment therein arrive there via happenstance. That's not how these discussions work however; we don't do random polling or sampling, you know and I know that editors seek out the discussions they wish to comment in, and skip the ones that they do not. Some editors may find them via the categorizations of deletion discussions, others may discuss them at the Rescue Squad page, while still others may e-mail each other off-site about deletions in a common interest area. All of that is secondary to the substance of the opinions and the standing of the speaker within the project community. If 10 editors read about this at Wikipediocracy and arrived here to enter in reasoned opinions, the impetus that got them here isn't relevant. IMO the only time off-wiki stuff is a concern is if a bunch of single-purpose accounts show up, or if editors with a vested interest in a topic area post highly-volatile/emotive reasons to keep or delete.
Tarc (
talk)
21:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
<ec>First, I was arguing that there was canvasing, which Luke claimed was a lie (?!). But as to bias, I do think
WP:CANVAS exists for a good reason and that when canvassing biases the discussion the numeric effects of it need to be taken into account. In this case we've got a lot of people supporting the same "huge stretch" that something which has seen coverage over decades and has occurred over decades is a single event. Now if they have the stronger argument, great. But their numbers shouldn't play a huge role when determining either in the AfD or the DRV's consensus. Tarc, I may be mistaken, but did you argue that the Article Rescue Squadron and it's tagging was nothing but a CANVASing body at one point and so should be shut down? Sorry if I'm confusing you with someone else.
Hobit (
talk)
22:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm perfectly fine with how the ARS is functioning now; back then, my beef was with some of their members' "keep I like it!" voting mentality that never actually evaluated the case at hand, and with the Rescue Template that they used to be able to place on the article itself. Both of those situations have been resolved, the former by attrition of some of the worst offenders, the latter by deletion of the template. I'm still not convinced that like-minded numbers showing up is a bad thing, provided that their arguments are sound. I mean, how is it any different than when we let, say, the Transformers Wiki-Project know that an article within their scope is up for deletion.? Why is that kind of "canvassing" OK, esp when it will likely end up attracting editors who will vote along the same lines?
Tarc (
talk)
22:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
We're normally okay with notifications that are transparent and neutrally-worded. Offwiki discussions, particularly on a Wikipedia Review successor site, are seen as attempted vote-stacking and regarded with mistrust, as 28bytes' close rightly indicates. It's not unreasonable to contend that 28bytes should have given more weight to WP:CANVAS in the close.—
S MarshallT/
C23:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
True. But it is reasonable to discount the numeric effects of the canvassed !votes. That's what we generally do with canvassed !votes. If they have the stronger argument, that's great. But if not, their large numbers shouldn't be treated as a reason to override our actual policies and guidelines or to interpret them in a novel way.
Hobit (
talk)
02:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Given that we are closing in on sixty !votes here, it's reasonable to assume that there is plenty of recruitment to go around. Anyone can go read what's on Wikipediocracy, so it's plenty transparent, and anyone can see that there is hardly unanimity there about these issues. Also, by my estimation no more than three active WO people participated in the AfD, and one said delete, one said keep, and the third merely commented. It seems to me that the continued reference to That Other Site is intended to poison this discussion through a rather dubious use of guilt by tenuous association.
Mangoe (
talk)
02:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
But it wasn't the numbers, it was the stronger argument that was made, according to the closing rationale. Also, if you read through that thread you'd also see that there are several users there who believe the article should have been kept. For all the site's faults, it is not a Borg-like monolith of one voice & one way to vote. Recall that in the AfD,
cyclopia said that he discovered the deletion discussion via Wikipediocracy as well. An external website that generates as much controversy as it does is going to attract as many critics and watchdogs as it does followers, so while some of the individual posts in that thread may be non-neutral (and there is no expectation that they should be, as they are not bound by this project's neutrality policies), you cannot say that the audience (many silent, many non-members) is partisan. So if the discussion attracted participants form all sides of the debate, then the "OMG CANVAS!" claims begin to ring a bit hollow, we would have to conclude. I'm sorry, but all you and a few others here are doing a bit of wiki-lawyering here, like a politician who lost a race trying to get his opponent disqualified because he really lived in another district for a few months or forgot to dot an i and cross a t on his tax returns or something.
Tarc (
talk)
03:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
It was the stronger argument that was made in 28bytes' opinion. Let's face the facts about Wikipedia administrators: although they're generally a well-meaning bunch, there are children and self-confessed drug users among their number, and passing the popularity contest at RFA doesn't give you infallible judgment. That's why it's right that admins' decisions are open to criticism and questioning. The purpose of deletion review is to let us do that in a formal, structured way. Referring to a policy like WP:CANVAS doesn't mean we're lawyering.
It's not unreasonable to contend that 28bytes' decision was unusual in several respects. It's accepted, of course, that Wikipedia will generate controversy and offsite discussion. But in any deletion discussion, a canvassing post on an offsite messageboard is always going to be a cause for concern and that's doubly true of a Wikipedia Review successor-site which contains a disproportionate number of posters who seem to be using the place as some form of post-Wikipedia therapy.—
S MarshallT/
C08:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Facepalmthere are children and self-confessed drug users among their number is a bizarre comment to make. Even if that were true, 28bytes is neither. Adding to that your repeated personal attacks at the various editors, admins and arbitrators here that converse at Wikipediocracy, I can only conclude that you're trying to troll half of the participants in this discussion. —
Scott•talk10:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Are you saying that there aren't children or self-confessed drug users in our admin corps? Or are you saying that it's bizarre that I would mention it? And are you seriously saying that Wikipediocracy users are respected, level-headed editors, admins and arbitrators in good standing who I'm unfairly characterising?—
S MarshallT/
C12:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
S Marshall, since when is "drug usage" remotely relevant here? Particularly as that is a VERY broad term. Your desperation is hilariously pathetic. And John, I seriously doubt that 28bytes and Vigilant are one and the same...
Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)13:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Regarding "It was the stronger argument that was made in 28bytes' opinion"...yes! That's the heart of the matter here; XfDs should not be overturned because of a difference of opinion. Otherwise, why should any admin step up to close any deletion discussion that is remotely heated/controversial? As some
wise men once said, contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes, it isn't an argument.
Tarc (
talk)
13:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
To review errors, e.g. conflict-of-interest, a supervote, a mishandling of policy, and the like. I filed my first DRV ever a few weeks ago when in my opinion an admin fundamentally misapplied "Not Censored" policy when choosing to retain
WP:CUM as a valid redirect to a project page. Not enough agreed with my point-of-view however, so the redirect remains. Such is the life of a consensus-driven project.
Tarc (
talk)
17:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I think that what we're discussing is whether there was consensus for deletion or not, and I think that's a fair question for a DRV. 28bytes' opinion was that there was. It's reasonable for a deletion review to discuss whether that view is correct, though, isn't it?—
S MarshallT/
C18:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
That's an AfD argument, not a DRV argument. We're only here to review the closing admin's actions, to which an "I disagree" is not sufficient grounds to overturn.
Tarc (
talk)
22:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The DRV argument would be that the discussion was defective and reached the wrong conclusion (either because of outside interference with the process, or because there were sources the discussion failed to unearth and consider). We generally do tolerate arguments in this form at DRV.—
S MarshallT/
C23:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Let me clarify: this is not a clear cut case. The closer's admin decided that the majority decided it is BLP1E case. My point is that the agrument of the majority was less solid than the closer thinks. The article describes at least three different phenomena associated with the guy: (a) his arrests (2) trolling of jail's website and internet phenomenon. The closer has a right to dismiss a faulty argument. My argument is that the closer failed to do so.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
02:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse due to no particularly good reason being given to overturn. I'd say BLP1E applies. The 1E in question is specifically the 1000th arrest, which was the only one anyone apparently cared about and (surprise!) according to the article wasn't even really the 1000th arrest anyway. Even setting that aside, we have miles of precedent that doing something non-notable multiple times doesn't make it notable, hence we don't have articles on the vast majority of world record holders, for example. We're also being given the (extremely silly) excuse that deleting the article will deprive him of publicity--which actually sounds like an excellent reason NOT to have an article.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind23:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn to no consensus: I have no doubt that Mr. Earl, after being arrested 1300+ times, is very concerned about whether he is covered on wikipedia, regardless of the extensive coverage his plight has received in the news over years. BLP1E doesn't apply from my review of the sourcing, but we are at DRV - so, was there a consensus to delete? Plainly not. Its foolhardy to claim otherwise, no matter how many words are used to justify any deletion. The closer wanted to delete the article, so he did. Mr. Earl and wikipedia won't be improved one iota by that result. (P.S. I wasn't recruited to this discussion, I saw deletionist cries emanating from my watchlist and figured I see what the trainwreck was about.)--Milowent • hasspoken02:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I see nothing wrong with the administrative action. The delete votes made a perfectly legitimate argument, they were in the majority, and the closer weighed their arguments more than the keep votes, as he felt the policy-based arguments were stronger on the delete side. This seems to be a by-the-book close. If the keep votes had been in the majority and the delete votes were all based on
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then maybe someone could make the argument that consensus was overruled by a supervote, but I just can't see that here.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
07:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse The AFD discussion and the closing rationale were rather embarrassing aberrations. The best thing is to draw all this to a close and lose the article (which will be no significant loss and could even be a benefit). Then we can resume normal service. Best wishes to all concerned.
Thincat (
talk)
11:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This article was voted to be deleted mainly on the basis of
WP:CRYSTAL, which I would agree with. But considering it subsequently proved to be a hoax, and that it obtained a significant amount of press attention by dedicated websites both before and after the fact was made known, I feel there are ground for the page to be re-created and adjusted accordingly. --
Jasca Ducato (
talk)
16:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Appears to meet the GNG. Arguments like CRYSTAL and OR don't make a lot of sense given that CRYSTAL doesn't apply to well-sourced things even if hoaxes and it isn't OR if it's sourced. I'm tempted to !vote to overturn (potentially to keep). My personal preference would have been a redirect to
Fallout 4 (also under discussion for deletion, but I'd say this material would save it...).
Hobit (
talk)
21:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn - to no consensus. There's enough sources to plausibly argue that it passes
WP:N, while they're perhaps weak enough to plausibly argue it fails
WP:N (at least, my perusal of them suggests they're not so far to one side or the other that the closing admin can entirely discount either position). Marginal with respect to WP:N and marginal with respect to headcount should be no consensus. The WP:CRYSTAL argument is what comes out of the north end of a south-facing bull, and should be entirely ignored by the closing admin, of course.
WilyD10:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse deletion but no prejudice for re-creation. The article as it stands is a mess but there may be sources out there to support a completely re-written-from-scratch article. Яehevkor✉12:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse deletion. For starters, I don't go by a head-count and agree with closer's summary. The deletion argument was not that there aren't reliable sources (or that articles about hoaxes aren't allowed), it's that none of them were in-depth and all were routine video game news coverage. They are only considered in-depth, when it is a review, a commentary, discussion of cultural impact, at least editor's opinion, etc. Here they simply reported the website and followed the fake clues and then reported it was a hoax. Previews, PRs and sensationalized articles like this are commonly dismissed for GNG, because they carry no material besides the original primary source. It's not that most of keep !votes did not say there weren't any sources, it's that these sources weren't shown to adequately satisfy GNG's in-depth criteria. While many users said then and here about abundance of sources, this only satisfies "multiple" and "reliable" (
WP:VG/RS) GNG bits. I also respect that others have a different view on GNG threshold that I happen to disagree with in this case. I also don't think material should all be deleted, and a mention in Fallout 4 or some list of hoaxes would be perfectly fine. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK16:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse deletion if anything, I'd say that the fact that Thesurvivor2299 turned out to be a fanmade hoax is a strong argument that the AFD got it right and a reminder of exactly why we have rules like WP:N and CRYSTAL. The supposition that being a fanmade hoax site somehow made it MORE notable eather than less is just bizarre. If anything, it's very much the opposite.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind20:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse deletion. The article was a total mess at the time of its deletion. A circumstance in which it was recreated would require a complete rewrite, at a time when the sources had calmed down. The page should not be restored to the way it was prior to its deletion.
CR4ZE (
t)
00:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - I do agree with some editors above that the article is currently a mess; if the deletion is overturned I or someone else should fundamentally rewrite it.
Overturn to NC topic clearly meets GNG. Numeric consensus wasn't strong enough come close to overcoming that. Many arguments for deletion were weak at best (CRYSTAL? really?) though so were many of the keep arguments. But you need something stronger than that discussion to delete something with a dozen sources solely on the topic including at least two mainstream sources.
Hobit (
talk)
05:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Why is CRYSTAL not a valid argument? GNG is a guideline, CRYSTAL is a policy. I've seen CRYSTAL denoted as an invalid argument several times now, but I'm not sure I understand why. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK10:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
CRYSTAL might apply to Fallout 4 and would certainly apply to Fallout 5. But I don't see how it could apply to a website that clearly exists and has coverage. Obviously you see it applying here, could you explain why?
Hobit (
talk)
13:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
"Obviously you see it applying here" -- I did not say so, it obviously doesn't. You can see my above statement concerns GNG only. CRYSTAL was before it was revealed as true/hoax and the article did not adequately represent this, most editors did not alter their arguments with that development. I merely asked why you mentioned CRYSTAL specifically among other arguments and why you described it the way you did -- "CRYSTAL? really?". I can see way less valid reasons, such as HOAX or just "per" votes. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK14:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Ah, now I'm really lost. We both agree CRYSTAL doesn't apply. I don't feel it _ever_ applied as the website existed the whole time of the discussion (and you disagree with that? I can't really tell). Could you explain what you are trying to get at? In any case, if people !vote to delete for reason X and X no longer applies, those !votes should be discounted (not ignored, just counted for less).
Hobit (
talk)
14:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Website existed, but coverage was a one-time news event (easily coverable in 2-3 sentences in game's article if it was real or in some hoax list if it wasn't), while the article implied otherwise. CRYSTAL applied because editors were making assumption of how the site will or won't turn out, while is yet hadn't. Anyway, that's besides the point, I just asked what you meant, that's all. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK16:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Ah, got ya. I'd argue that we don't normally delete because the article is badly written (though
WP:TNT does have its place). But now I understand your point. Thanks.
Hobit (
talk)
20:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn. Closing admin admitted it could be kept as no consensus "without batting an eye", then said he thought the deleters had the better argument (aka supervote?). But WP:Crystal does not apply now at all, and in fact, it never applied even before the hoax was revealed. That policy does not prohibit speculations about future events that are sourced, as a part of explaining why a site is of interest to multiple publications.
Wnt (
talk)
19:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Recreate As far as I can tell at the time of the review the decision was a fair reflection of the consensus, and of the website. However as a revealed hoax with coverage as a hoax it is now notable even if the information in the old article is best used as source. The situation has changed.
Neonchameleon (
talk)
13:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I was advised to have the image's deletion reviewed here. This image was deleted without one single vote of either keep or delete. There was one comment saying that only one image must be used, but that person didn't say either the original or the re-release edition. In contrast,
the other discussion says that two different album covers are good enough for another album,
Touch (Sarah McLachlan album). Should consensus be straightforward or inconsistent? I did advise administrators to not delete the image without consensus, but the advise was ignored. Oh yes, almost forgot: the album cover was also discussed in
WT:non-free content/Archive 60#Choosing one of album and singles covers of a similar work.
George Ho (
talk)
00:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment. Maybe
WP:FFD isn't the best forum for perceptive consensus building and relisting until happy agreement has been reached. Also, the instructions for closers are rather different from other deletion venues "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised".
[3] In this case no objections had been raised (but no one supported deleting this particular image either).
Thincat (
talk)
20:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
If there are multiple files and it is unclear which ones we should keep, it may be better to use
WP:NFCR instead. Maybe it is better to simply list this case there. However, if an article fails
WP:NFCC#3a, then something must be deleted per policy, although it is difficult to decide which image(s) if there only is consensus that something is to be deleted but no consensus about what that something is. --
Stefan2 (
talk)
00:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn and relist we have longstanding precedents for multiple cover artwork when RS'es cover the difference,
Virgin Killer being the most notable example that springs to mind. Regardless, per the PROD precedent, any 'unless anyone objects' deletion that has someone object after the deletion's closure is routinely restored and immediately eligible for a more detailed deletion discussion, which I think is the best way forward here.
Jclemens (
talk)
09:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
relist I think given there was no discussion deletion was acceptable. But now that someone has raised a reasonable objection it's time to have that discussion.
Hobit (
talk)
22:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - For your information, I did upload this image, and regrettably nominated it for deletion. If you can overturn the deletion and then "withdraw" my FFD nomination, that would be fine. As advised, I can have both album covers of
In My Tribe reviewed in
WP:NFR.
George Ho (
talk)
02:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
You deleted the page started for Kevin L. McCrudden. Stating it was "promotional." How is anything "biographical" not "promotional?"
There were several news sources and news clips given as "objective sources" and even a page from The United States Congress.
What information do you need then in order to assign or move this worthy page forward?
How or when do we know if you have responded? Where do we receive notice? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.114.230.83 (
talk)
19:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)reply
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review . I would not necessarily restore an article like this even temporarily, but it will be easier to see the depth of the problems with the text available,; it's at
Kevin L. McCrudden. With respect to notice, the username under which the article was contributed was
User:Kevin McCrudden, so the notice was properly paced at the same time the deletion was requested, on that user's talk page,
User talk:Kevin McCrudden. DGG (
talk )
19:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse the speedy deletion. To me the the article very clearly is covered by the
WP:CSD#G11 criterion. Although I can find parts of the article which do not seem promotional (e.g. the last paragraph) it needs a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic in tone.
Thincat (
talk)
21:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse per Thincat. I'll admit I didn't make it all the way to the last paragraph, but it met G11 before that no matter how it finished.
Hobit (
talk)
21:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Thank you for taking a look at this. The discussion is that there are thousands of pages about people that haven't done what Mr. McCrudden has done. He was named specifically as the creator of National Motivation & Inspiration Day during the debate of H. Res 308 on 12/18/2001.
He is a published author with books and audiobooks on Amazon, iTunes and Barnes & Noble. All of which are neutral, non partisan sites.
His appearances on national and international TV are on unbiased sites. All of the links to all of these sites are on his web sites.
How can we have someone begin a page with these very legitimate links and pages?
In order to write an article about person you will need links to neutral sources which discuss the person in question in reasonable detail which allow us to establish the notability of the person, see
WP:NOTABILITY and the sidebar in it for subject-specific guidelines. Further, your article must be based only on information in these sources and this information must be presented without superlative terms (see
WP:PEACOCK).
Staszek Lem (
talk)
00:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Thank you. I guess my concern is how does any page about someone NOT come across as "promotional?"
I understand the superlatives, but we have provided pages from the United States Congress. Amazon, iTunes. Barnes & Noble. Fox News. ABC News. How are these NOT objective?
National Motivation & Inspiration Day was passed by The United States Congress on 12/18/2001 after the tragic events of 9-11-01. H. Res 308 is the resolution that was passed declaring January 2nd National Motivation & Inspiration Day.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hres308
? I'm so sorry. I am just not getting you guys. How is the Congressional Record, Amazon, iTunes, Apple and Fox News NOT "reliable external, independent sources?" We must be missing something?
Yes, you are missing something, namely the parts in my previous reply highlighted in boldface (since I did suspect you will miss them). Now, please explain which part of Kevins's biography is based on, e.g. Amazon and iTunes links?
Staszek Lem (
talk)
18:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I apologize. So, "discuss the person" Kevin McCrudden. Is that what you're saying?
Is this what you mean? We were so preoccupied defending why he deserves a page, we weren't giving you the specifics you needed. Is that what was happening? I thought we were providing information for someone else to write the article though?
I hope we're getting closer to what you needed. Is this enough to get the ball rolling? Do you need us to supply you with links to fill in blanks?
Your replies clearly demonstrate that you fail to understand the nature of our requirements and our objections despite a long discussion. You failed to answer direct questions addressed to you. Therefore regardless the merits of Kevin McCrudden,I see no point to talking to you further, sorry. According to your policy,
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, I would suggest you to abandon this issue. If he is as notable a person as you claim, then let somebody else to write the article.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
20:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I apologize for not understanding your cryptic note in bold that said,
(In order to write an article about person you will need links to neutral sources which discuss the person in question in reasonable detail which allow us to establish the notability of the person, see
WP:NOTABILITY and the sidebar in it for subject-specific guidelines. Further, your article must be based only on information in these sources and this information must be presented without superlative terms)
I'm sorry you feel it's a waste of time. This is our third attempt to have a page loaded for Mr. McCrudden. It has been over a decade since the creation of National Motivation & Inspiration Day, which was passed by Congress. I just don't know what more of an objective site you can find. It's just fact. No superlatives. His books and audiobooks are just fact. No superlatives there either. They are on sale on internationally recognized web sites. So, forgive us for not getting "your language "
Our original request was to ask if there is a way that someone can build this page. Otherwise, we would do it, if we knew how. We don't. It's like asking us to speak Greek. We don't.
Is there someone else we can have review this? A "Supervisor" of sorts?
We have tried to be polite, but it seems there is some condescension that we don't understand. We are reading the sentences and they do not make sense.
69.114.230.83 (
talk)
20:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
If you cannot handle the phrase "neutral sources which discuss the person in question in reasonable detail", then you probably are not in a position to do anything in wikipedia. A venue to start an article if you don't know how to do this is
WP:AFC (I assume you know how to click a mouse on a blue text.). However if the phrase "see
WP:NOTABILITY and the sidebar in it for subject-specific guidelines" is cryptic for you, then I am afraid it will be extremely difficult to help you. A "Supervisor" for this issue is wikipedia community, and it looks like the community does not in favor of your issue. We do have "supervisors of sorts", but they are only to handle acute issues harmful for wikipedia: we (including "supervisors") are all volunteers here, working in our free time to build encyclopedia. All typical, everyday, "
small claims court", issues are handled by
a consensus of wikipedians who have free time and are willing to spend it on the issue.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
17:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Staszek. Please understand that we appreciate your time, but there is still some room for miscommunication here.
You have clearly once again stated that your direction was "neutral sources which discuss the person" in question in reasonable detail." BUT you have still not answered how verbal record of Mr. McCrudden on the floor of The United States Congress, on National TV interviews, and Books and Audiobooks written and spoken by Mr. McCrudden DO NOT meet the criteria of "neutral sources?" Please. Explain how these are NOT "neutral sources?"
There are literally thousands of Wiki pages on people that have done nothing close to what Mr. McCrudden has done and yet, they have Wiki pages?
Truly. We are sorry that you seem frustrated, as are we. There is no question of his "NOTABILITY" it's just a matter of how you are willing to read it.
If we are NOT doing it properly, we have asked several times if there is someone that we can work with to make sure it is done properly. Please advise and please note that this is nothing personal at all, we do not know you and you do not know us. We are just trying to get something done that is long overdue. That's all.
Staszek. Thank you again for your time and patience.
Thank you for asking a specific, answerable question. This question means that you did not follow my repeated advice "see
WP:NOTABILITY and the sidebar in it for subject-specific guidelines". Let me move your computer mouse for you. The page
WP:NOTABILITY must be perused whenever you start an article on a no-so-well known subject whose notability may be contested. Therefore I advised you to start from it. Further, a rather prominent sidebar in it contains links to rules for specific subject categories; in our case "People" fits best, and since we have a problem, you must read it carefully. Its first section, "Basic criteria" contains an answer to your question.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
19:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Being a "friend" of a Congressman and getting him to plug your pet idea is not a sign of notability. Especially since Congress, given half a chance, would create a day honoring whoever invented flavored Pringles. There are states where the legislature proclaims a special day to honor every Eagle Scout.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (
talk)
00:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse - no reasonable assertion of notability other than the day passed by the United States Congress. And the link in the archived page is broken; the link to the article does not mention Kevin McCrudden in any way at all and so doesn't show that he had anything to do with what is, after all, mostly empty words from politicians unless accompanied by funding. It also doesn't create the day - it supports the goals of the day; a much lower standard to meet so even that isn't notable. A third party (non-press-release) news article to establish this would help a lot. The American Motivation Awards seem almost entirely non-notable. The
only source I've found to mention them outside youtube and the awarder themselves starts
"Our good friend Kevin McCrudden" - I've seen more notable awards that are given away by individual blogs. His books? I've only checked
one - but it was published through a
vanity press (and has no amazon reviews) - massively failing
wp:NAUTHOR. And he's appeared on Fox News. One or two appearances in the news does not make you notable. And neither does creating a local magazine or founding your own company (or every small business owner would be). If that is genuinely the best you can do for Mr McCrudden, he has a long way to go before he passes
wp:GNG. And yes, there are less notable people on Wikipedia
wp:OTHER - but I doubt that many of them had such a flagrantly eyecatching biography
wp:PEACOCK and list of unsupported assertions and phrases such as "which may be acknowledged as the most significant change / addition to"
wp:WEASEL. Such breaches of normal Wikipedia tone and style check whether such pages are ones that need to be improved to match
wp:Style or should simply be deleted. The answer here has been obvious. Question Does going through an AFD review count as being deleted through the AfD rather than
wp:Speedy process? Meaning that if this article is recreated does it qualify under
wp:G4?
Neonchameleon (
talk)
14:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
We never realized that Wikipedia was run by such biased, closed minded people, that are so judgmental. None of you that are critiquing and judging have created a day passed by The United States Congress, have you? Nor did thousands of speakers before him and his name is actually mentioned on the floor and is therefore part of the Congressional Record and what is a Congressman going to say, "he's an enemy?" Many of your comments are intentionally derogatory, hurtful and you think you're being funny or or smug or something.
We thought we were dealing with legitimate people with a legitimate interest. You sound like some High Schoolers trashing someone. Have you read his book? Did you see who has spoken in favor of his book? Maslow's Hierarchy has been taught the same way for 60 years to millions of students, making the same assumptions, until the introduction of Mr. McCrudden's 21st Century Multidimensional Hierarchy of Needs. Have you guys written a book? If you had, you would realize that regardless how it's published in today's publishing world, it's about the message. If you did research, you would know that Mr. McCrudden's book has been sold all over the world. Have you done that? Was it Truman or FDR that made the quote about people making judgements from the stands, that aren't actually in the game?
If being on national TV. Selling books world wide. Having legislation passed by Congress, NYS and Suffolk County, working with hundreds of media companies, creating "Sales Universities," running for Public office and being declared the winner by a major daily newspaper and losing in a recount, as well as being on Cablevision, Fox and ABC TV, as well as national radio programs are all things that make him NOT worthy, I wonder what makes someone "noteworthy" or "notable."
Unfortunately, you have now made this seem very personal and made attacks on his character. This now almost seems like, "bullying" and character assassination. Quite the opposite of what we had wanted to accomplish. Mr. McCrudden's accomplishments are quite unique and more than enough to qualify him to have a page on Wikipedia. We are sorry that we didn't present information from objective sources like Congress, Fox News and ABC News that somehow weren't objective enough.
We stated clearly, we were looking for your help. Somehow, it became a bithfest filled with prima donnas making nasty, condescending comments.
The comments you are making acknowledge exactly why he is noteworthy, but it's your biased judgement that is declaring he is note noteworthy.
From my observation there is a vast amount of bias in this discussion. However all of it is coming from you; the rest of us wouldn't know Mr McCrudden from Adam (which is part of the point). No I haven't read his vanity-press produced book. And so far as I can tell nor has anyone else except for his friends and the people he pushes it to. If you look at
Who Are You? Become the Very Best U That U Can Be (sic) there is not one single Amazon review. Not just no reviews somewhere notable - but not even Amazon has any reviews on the subject. Have I written a book? Yes. What I didn't then do was pay someone to publish it as McCrudden did. And I didn't then have it put on Amazon, currently ranked over #3,500,000 (i.e. there are more than three and a half million better selling books through Amazon). I've a friend with a badly received trilogy published ten years ago who's still ranked over #2,000,000 despite the attrition in Amazon rankings over time. And he's barely notable as an author. As for your claim about the teaching of Maslow's Hierarchy, show me three accredited universities that are teaching it - rather than his consultancy and a couple of people that have hired his consultancy are giving out his handouts (as google shows). And for the record people have been looking at multidimensional versions of Maslow's hierarchy of needs
at least as far back as 1989, meaning that the claim making him the first vanishes in a puff of smoke. His
sole entry in the congressional record is "I would also like to thank my constituent and my friend, Kevin McCrudden, whose birthday it is today, for coming up with this idea and for working closely with me and my staff to see that this comes to fruition." No discussion in depth. The more you show, the more I investigate, the less notable he looks. And perhaps you would care to show where I have made things personal about him rather than shown that he himself is not notable by Wikipedia's standards, and that the biography of him that was deservedly deleted was in breach of Wikipedia's style guidelines. (Other than calling him Kevin McCrud which was unintentional and for which I apologise). Accusations of personal attacks should be demonstrated or retracted. But if you're worried about negative press, honestly the best thing you can do is stop posting. If you hadn't launched a personal attack above he'd just have been another person through deletion review with a non-notable article. In a week's time I would not even have remembered his name.
Neonchameleon (
talk)
00:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse speedy deletion per Staszek Lem's careful explanations. This is unsalvageable promotion. The Fox News appearances might provide an hint of the substantial coverage in independent
reliable sources that is required by Wikipedia's
general notability guideline, but nothing else that's been presented comes close. I also did some searching to see if I could find any other substantive independent coverage of "National Motivation and Inspiration Day" or the "American Motivation Awards"; nothing turned up. Since this lengthy discussion has not turned up anything, and the IP editor(s) has failed to grasp the problem (see
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) and has turned to namecalling, I suggest that it may be time to close this review. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Arxiloxos. Thank you for your note. This is quite frustrating.
According to the definition of "noteworthy" and "reliable sources," we have met the threshold of that several times and have provided links. (above)
He has appeared on Fox News 3 times and on ABC twice and Cablevision, as well as numerous radio interviews.
His name is specifically mentioned in the Congressional Record for the creation of H. Res 308, which was also passed by NYS Resolution and Suffolk County NY. 3 separate levels of government. How is that not noteworthy. These are judgement calls being made that are not "objective."
His books and audiobooks are on sale at Amazon, iTunes, Barnes&Noble and dozens of other online audio book sites. These are international sites that he has no control over.
The reason I am continuing this discussion is based on the feedback that has been given and we are now fearful that one of these bloggers / contributors will actually write something negative or nasty about Mr. McCrudden, which he doesn't deserve. We didn't resort to "name calling." There were derogatory and negative comments made about Mr. McCrudden and his work.
He has quotes and testimonials from some of the leading speakers in the world that say positive things about him and his work. He has videos of Zig Ziglar and Dr. Stephen Covey, who were two of the biggest names in the "motivation industry" followed literally by millions acknowledging him, as well as The Tuskegee Airmen and others acknowledging him and The American Motivation Awards, which were trivialize.
We feel shocked and "sideswiped," by the negativity in this correspondence. Who are these people to trivialize or minimize others accomplishments? If they haven't accomplished any of these things, how do they sit in judgement like it was no accomplishment at all? That's not very objective?
Just very disappointed by this entire experience. Just very unprofessional.
as this is an event (crash), none of the keep !voters addressed concerns or provided any real evidence of
WP:PERSISTENT coverage. 2 keep !voters cited an unreleased report as evidence of persistent coverage. yet an unreleased report is not actually evidence.
LibStar (
talk)
23:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse The discussion was almost entirely based on the notability guidelines and, having considered them, people are entitled to take a view of whether an article is warranted. An AfD notability discussion is not like a game of whist – comments like "WP:EVENT trumps WP:GNG" do not represent guidelines or policy and neither is there a policy that "Libstar trumps other cards". There was no agreement on whether the topic meets the guidelines or on whether the article should be deleted.
Thincat (
talk)
08:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse I could have understood (even if not approved) a delrev for a keep closure, but it was clear there was no consensus in the discussion, and arguments as
WP:PERSISTENT can't be properly assessed given the time frame. LibStar being very anxious to
erase the encyclopedia piecemeal is not a deletion rationale either. --
cyclopiaspeak!10:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse a clear keep would have been better, but no consensus is correct. There was enough international coverage, as I have read about this Swedish train accident in both Dutch and Irish news sources. The Bannertalk22:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse The closure was fine, there no consensus one way or the other. Libstar argued with everyone in the first AFD early this year, then brought the article to a second AFD this month, and not getting his way that time either, comes to the deletion review to try yet again. Please stop beating a dead horse already.
DreamFocus15:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Henry Earl – No consensus, "delete" closure maintained by default. This
WP:BLP article was about a homeless person reported in the media for being frequently arrested. About 26 editors contributed to the deletion discussion, with 10 expressing a "keep" opinion and 16 a "delete" opinion based on an automated count. The AfD closer found a consensus to delete based on
WP:BLP1E. In this deletion review, about 30 contributors would endorse the closure and about 20 would overturn it, but they are divided about whether the outcome of the discussion should have been to keep the article because of no consensus to delete, or whether the deletion discussion should be relisted. I find that this review discussion does not yield consensus about whether and how to dispose of the contested closure. According to the procedures documented at the top of this page, "in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate". I am of the view that relisting a discussion is appropriate if the deletion discussion was inadequate (e.g, because few people contributed to it) or if the review discussion has brought new relevant facts or arguments to light. That does not seem to be the case here. I therefore refrain from relisting the discussion. This means that the "delete" closure remains in effect because there is no consensus to overturn it. – Sandstein 12:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I don't feel the closing administrator properly understood the consensus here. Both votes on each side were policy-based, with the deleters believing it a BLP violation and a one event, while the keepers feeling it was a GNG pass and the fact that coverage wasn't based on a single event makes him ineligible for BLP1E. I feel at the very least this should've been a relist. Consensus to me didn't look especially clear on either side.
Beerest 2talk20:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The closer didn't specify BLP1E (which is what most of the delete !votes were based upon) but rather the (accurate) notion that just because a topic meets the GNG doesn't mean we need to have an article on it. I'd claim however that A) that argument didn't have consensus at all and B) such an IAR closing should have an especially strong consensus. (making some updates below)
Clearly meets the GNG per the discussion, the closer and sources. So the question is if there is some other reason to delete.
The BLP1E arguments were misguided at best in any case as is stretches the definition of event to the point of breaking to have it go over a period of decades. But if there was consensous that it should apply in that discussion we'd probably go with that. But there was no such consensus in the discussion.
Arguments that the information is indiscriminate are A) not supported by the discussion in any way and B) not supported by
WP:indiscriminate as none of the 4 points even come close to applying (and no one, closer or otherwise explained how they did).
Overturn to no consensus as that discussion had none and there was no argument strong enough to justify deletion.
Hobit (
talk) 21:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC) original follow up:
Hobit (
talk)
19:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment from closing admin: I'm always happy to relist a debate if there is very little participation or the consensus is unclear, but in this case I felt there was sufficient participation and a clear enough consensus to warrant a close after the standard 7 days.
28bytes (
talk)
21:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse closure - OK, obviously I am biased here, but seriously, people are getting desperate to keep what amounts to little more than an "OMG THIS GUY IS BAD" page. BLP1E is perfectly valid, when the vast majority of coverage was routine arrest reports. 15 votes for delete, 9 for keep (discounting the two extra that were clearly the same person) isn't a clear consensus, but it is definitely weighted towards delete. And topics that meet GNG but fail BLP1E are routinely deleted.
Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)22:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Maybe I'm too literal, but I'm not seeing a single event here. It is a series of things spread out over decades. It's a single "claim" but so too is "baseball player" or some such. I'm not clear how this meets BLP1E but a baseball player doesn't. (I do get that this is a negative BLP and I can see why that matters, but I don't see how it makes BLP1E expand to such a broad thing, though IAR could make good sense here.) Further, the closer didn't cite BLP1E, so I don't see how that is relevant...
Hobit (
talk)
22:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Uh, Hobit, what part of "I'm therefore convinced that deletion is compatible with both WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG." and "I'm persuaded by the arguments that WP:BLP1E applies to this article." isn't BLP1E being cited by the closer?
Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)22:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Hmmm, apparently the part I didn't read. Opps. I will note that BLP1E wasn't mentioned before that, so it's unclear how that conclusion was reached (still not sure how I missed it though...). I'll still ask the question--how is this one event?
Hobit (
talk)
01:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Given that BLP1E is clearly mentioned twice, one of which is in the concluding sentence, I'm not sure how it could be clearer (I may be so bold to suggest that you look at it with a fresh set of eyes in a few hours after a rest, that may help). Anyway, those quibbles aside, BLP1E comes up because the only non-routine coverage is for the alleged 1000th arrest. Everything else has been a routine "he got arrested again" type piece, and it is irrelevant who carries such a piece at that point; it's still just routine, and is still just literally the same thing over and over again.
Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)01:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
What policy are you referring to here? I got the sense of an IAR deletion from the closing statement, but I'm willing to change if on-point policy exists supporting this.
Hobit (
talk)
22:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn to no consensus It doesn't seem like there is perfect consensus on what to do with the article. I think that the keeps and deleters both had strong arguments that were both based on policy. I voted keep, but I can see where the delete voters are coming from. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits22:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse deletion: The comments of the closing administrator are perfectly rationale, sensible and acceptable, I see no issue with deleting an article that passes the General Notability Guidelines, especially in the event of biographies where the notability is derived from negative coverage of embarrassing or compromising events. There are always these odd little biographies that appear, where someone passes our notability threshold by accident rather than by design and it's sensible to allow the necessary leeway to permit deletion. I suppose we could go to the trouble of trying to tweak notability policy but that adds more complexity, a sensible deletion, as was carried out in this case, backed up by a strong and well thought out rationale is the best way forward. I've no issues at all with the deletion and commend the closing administrator, 28bytes on their close. If I was into all that soppy shit, I'd give them a cookie.
Nick (
talk)
22:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse the 1E was him being arrested too many times. It was a clear violation and the consensus was correct, despite all the canvassing on both sides.
Secretaccount22:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
How are multiple arrests over several decades "one event" again? I mean, at the very least this DRV should result in the rejection of that rationale for deletion and the conceiving of a new one. We don't need to set some sort of bizarre precedent where "one event" suddenly becomes "one common thread that spans multiple events" as that effectively upends the whole basis for that part of the policy. BLP1E is about living people who are minor figures in a single event of fixed duration. People who are repeatedly covered in-depth by national media for something that keeps happening to them or something they keep doing over many years are not people for whom BLP1E is meant to apply.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.23:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
@
The Devil's Advocate and
Everyking: I think it's a mistake to take BLP1E so literally that we ignore the idea behind it, which is to protect living people who would not even begin to meet our definition of "notable" were it not for a single aspect of their lives (in this case, an arrest record for low-level infractions for trespassing and the like) that caught the media's attention. It's true that multiple arrests are by definition more than one discrete event, but we shouldn't construe BLP1E so narrowly that we require a literal "single event" and lose sight of the broader goal behind our BLP policy, of which BLP1E is a part: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. There was a strong argument among the participants of the AfD that the existence of the article violated BLP1E – if not its letter, than certainly its spirit – and that argument was not, to my reading, effectively rebutted by the (smaller number of) participants who argued the article should be kept.
28bytes (
talk)
02:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Your reliance on an alleged "spirit" of BLP1E that you admit is unsupported by its language and is unsupported by any novel consensus, and is unsupported by the sources brought forward in the discussion demonstrates that your close was abusive of process. Your "editorial judgement", you have now said you sought to enact is not within your remit when acting as administrative closer. --
Alanscottwalker (
talk)
09:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't say Earl falls under the "low-profile individual" (he made an appearance on a highly-viewed talk show to discuss his numerous arrests) so I still don't believe BLP1E applies. Basically, if he died, he would be notable? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits03:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Countless people are considered notable for a single aspect of their lives. Being a politician is generally a single aspect of a person's life, for instance. No one considers that sort of thing an event and the only reason people are behaving differently is because of some perception about this being malicious. I think this whole conversation about "protecting him" is actually a tad patronizing since it ignores the fact the guy in question has nothing really going for him in his life except his Internet fame. He is a 60-something homeless guy with an addiction problem whose spent a quarter of his life in jail for minor offenses. I am pretty sure the brightest parts of his day involve some person saying "you're that guy on the Internet!" and asking to take a picture with him or get his autograph.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.04:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Stop making dumb arguments eh! This isn't a politician, this isn't a major league baseball player, this is a habitual drunk guy that lives in doorways and gets arrested for it, who was exploited by a TV show for entertainment, and is exploited by newspapers as space filler.
John lilburne (
talk)
07:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
What is dumb is your subjective and frankly offensive assessment of major league baseball players as somehow more deserving consideration than homeless people. --
cyclopiaspeak!10:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Homeless people deserve attention, I've started organisations campaigning for housing for them, sued local governments for not providing accommodation, initiated self help groups. But what they don't need is the attention of some dweeb compiling a encyclopedia article that is no more than pointing the finger at 'that guy'. What you had was an article that says habitually drunk guy gets arrested for being habitually drunk, that isn't an encyclopedia article, it isn't even a wp article, what you have is a pile of steaming horseshit. Write the article that is a balanced coverage of this guy's life and why he is notable and most of the delete votes will change to keep. As is often said there is no deadline here, so go away and write the proper article we can wait.
John lilburne (
talk)
16:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, they kind of are more deserving. Being notable and worthy of public attention for one's physical and athletic achievements is something to be proud of. Being scrutinized by the media because one's life is so in shambles that one keeps committing misdemeanor after misdemeanor, crime after crime, is a tragedy. Mr. Earl needs help; Alcoholics Anonymous, job training, life counseling, whatever it is that this country's social services can offer to get this person back on his feet. He isn't a politician or an athlete or a musician, people regularly glued to throngs of paparazzi. He's a human being, Cyclopia, one that does not deserve to have his 15 minutes of fame cemented into an encyclopedia for all-time.
Tarc (
talk)
14:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I didn't know that there was a hierarchy where -given the same amount/quality of sources coverage- some people deserve the (admittedly odd) honour of an article while some else do not. Maybe do we think that people living on the street are less human than people playing sports? Yes, Mr. Earl needs a lot of help. How this has to do, for better or worse, with coverage in an encyclopedia is beyond me. If anything, given that we're talking about help, the article here can make more people aware of his case and perhaps it will end up attracting the help he so sorely needs.--
cyclopiaspeak!15:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The dumb argument is saying "one event" can mean a large number of events with a recurring theme. Everything else just stems from that initial stupidity. Also, stow the babble about "exploiting" and "humanity" since I am fairly certain you have not even bothered to figure out what the guy himself thinks of his notoriety.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.16:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The event is being arrested for being drunk and sleeping in doorways. Being arrested once, twice, or a thousand times does change the event. I drive 30 miles to work and 30 miles back each day. According to you that I've done it 6500+ times in the last 15 years has changed the event of me driving along the A45 into something notable.
John lilburne (
talk)
16:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
First of all, I think you've just made a "slippery-slope" argument which generally isn't helpful. But in any case, even going down that slope, your conclusion is mistaken. In the case of your example, it does mean that if you got ongoing coverage for that drive, we'd not consider it one event. Ongoing coverage of multiple events is not a single event. I think the SS argument is actually on the side of those that think this isn't an event. By your logic a person notable for playing baseball would be notable for "one event" (playing baseball) and we shouldn't cover them per BLP1E. It's not the best argument, but it does show that taken to an extreme your argument about events creates a nonsensical result.
Hobit (
talk)
18:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Many of you have already slide down the slope into a effluent tank. If what you have is someone that has played baseball in the local park for N years then they are not notable, and such a person wouldn't have an article here. Baseball players are included here simply because they play baseball each week, they are included because they are members of notable teams, and they take part in otherwise notable games. It is a different category of notable and you are confusing logical types when you assume the notability is derived simply for participating in a game of baseball. None of these guy's arrests are individually notable.
John lilburne (
talk)
20:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse - The closing admin accepted the argument that the arrests, in totality, are the "event". How narrowly or how broadly to interpret policy such as
WP:BLP1E is well within admin discretion. Re-arguing this point at Deletion Review will not gain traction, as "I disagree" is not a valid basis for filing a complaint here.
Tarc (
talk)
03:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I think this is actually a good type of situation for IAR. But in general IAR shouldn't be used when there isn't consensus behind the notion that it does improve the encyclopedia. IAR isn't an excuse for not liking the consensus (or lack thereof) but rather a way to agree to follow consensus even if the rules as written say we should not.
Hobit (
talk)
18:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Question on Closing Comment - Ignoring the above discussion on BLP1E and No Consensus/Endorse Closure, I would like to make sure if 28bytes was correct to close the debate. To first quote 28bytes from the AfD: "[...] Countering BLP1E (and
WP:BLP concerns in general) are arguments that the subject meets
WP:GNG, but as the introduction to that guideline states: "Presumed" means that significant coverage
in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates
what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. [...]" The problem I have is that 28bytes cites Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE as the main rational. While WP:GNG, which was cited does mention WP:INDISCRIMINATE, none of the users in the discussion cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE in their comments as a reason for the article to be deleted nor made a reference to the text of the policy. My question is, can the closer cite a policy that was not a part of the discussion as their reason to end the discussion? I ask as it is only the closer who has made the argument to delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (I would like to take a moment here to note that I didn't directly bring this up to 28bytes since this review was started shortly after the discussion was closed; not to mention that I just found out about the review. Thus, I would like to request time for 28bytes to respond if, and only if, the closer is not permitted to cite a policy that was not a part of the discussion as the main rational.) --
Super Goku V (
talk)
07:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
@
Super Goku V: It was not my intention to use any policies in my close that had not been explicitly cited by the participants in the AfD. The main policies and guidelines being argued in the AfD were
WP:BLP,
WP:BLP1E and
WP:GNG. In the case of the latter, I quoted some of the introduction to the GNG that I felt was relevant to the discussion, my point being that GNG explicitly allows that subjects may have multiple, reliable source references and still not merit a standalone article. That the quote includes a reference to
WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not mean that I closed the discussion on that basis; my close was based solely on weighing the BLP/BLP1E and GNG arguments which had been brought up by the participants. I believe the last sentence of the close makes clear which policies and guidelines I considered operative to the debate: I'm therefore convinced that deletion is compatible with both
WP:BLP1E and
WP:GNG.28bytes (
talk)
22:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
@
28bytes: - Alright, but I am unsure if what you are saying is what you mean due to the beginning sentence in your response just now. You are saying that you mentioned WP:INDISCRIMINATE in the closing, but did not use it when you closed the discussion, is that correct? As a second question, and somewhat unrelated to this discussion, when you said that "this subject does not merit a stand-alone article," was it an throwaway sentence or did you mean that there could be a combined article of some kind or type? --
Super Goku V (
talk) 02:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Recovered from previous revision.
George Ho (
talk)
06:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
@
Super Goku V: I'm not sure how I can be more clear: the close was based on my analysis of the WP:BLP(1E) and WP:GNG arguments. You seem to be suggesting that closers shouldn't be allowed to quote from the policies and guidelines that the participants in the deletion discussion have brought up if the quote includes any reference to another policy. I don't think that's a reasonable restriction to put on XfD closers.
28bytes (
talk)
15:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
@
28bytes: "It was not my intention to 'use' any policies in my close that had not been explicitly cited by the participants in the AfD." I was referring to the word use in your sentence since it threw me off on what you meant, though I understand now. My problem is that I am 'still' unsure if the closer cite a policy that was not a part of the discussion. You are implying that an admin is allowed to do so, but I remember reading that the closer must make due with what arguments that they have, not the ones they wish to have. The problem is that we never had the in-depth discussion on
WP: what Wikipedia is not and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, nor did we have one on how far presumed goes. When you said, "this deletion discussion, has, from my reading of it, concluded that this subject does not merit a stand-alone article," I am not sure if it is taken on the basis of presumed or if we are still referring to WP:BLP1E. --
Super Goku V (
talk)
02:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
@
Super Goku V: The point is that the GNG explicitly says that multiple reliable sources are necessary but not sufficient for a topic to merit a standalone article. In other words, the GNG does not trump BLP or BLP1E, if those policies apply. The question then becomes, do they apply? Those favoring deletion argued that they do apply, those opposing argued that they do not. I found the arguments that they do apply to be more convincing, and more in line with policy, and I closed the debate accordingly. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up WP:INDISCRIMINATE; I have already explained that it was merely part of a larger quote from the GNG and not the basis for the close. I supposed I could have redacted or elided the part where the GNG mentions it, but I assumed that people would be able to tell that it was a passing reference within a quote and not the basis for the close. Are we on the same page now, at least on that point?
28bytes (
talk)
06:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn and relist This is a super!vote, and one that also introduced an argument not present in the discussion, as
Super Goku V (
talk·contribs) above correctly notices. Also: the BLP1E reading is also fatally flawed: there is no single event that the (very well sourced) material shown in the discussion would be able to be redirected/merged, in principle. Coverage was about the person. Saying that a string of similar events can be conglomerated as BLP1E is akin to saying that
Mick Jagger is a BLP1E because, well, all he's known for is singing in a string of records and concerns. --
cyclopiaspeak!10:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse closure. 28bytes' closure was a reasonable interpretation of the AfD. The question isn't whether you agree with 28bytes' interpretation, but whether his interpretation was within the reasonable bounds of admin discretion. It was. The application of
WP:BLP1E is reasonable (although not a slam-dunk), and I don't see any procedural reason to overturn 28bytes' proper closure. MastCellTalk07:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
@
MastCell: To make sure I understand this, as this is getting a bit confusing, the closing user can cite a policy that was not a part of the discussion in the closer, is that correct? --
Super Goku V (
talk)
07:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
From the closing comment, "[...] A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates
what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.}} [...]" WP:INDISCRIMINATE wasn't cited or mentioned in the AfD until 28bytes brought it up in the closer. I wanted to confirm if the closer is allowed to cite a policy that wasn't a part of the discussion in the way that occurred. --
Super Goku V (
talk)
02:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
In that case, the answer is
mu. The quote you mention comes verbatim from
WP:GNG. The sense of the quote was clear in 28bytes' original (unexcerpted) close, and bears no resemblance to the way you've presented it here. I see that 28bytes has already explained this to you above (
[1],
[2]). MastCellTalk22:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
-_- I have been asking if that was allowed and wanted to make sure that it was allow, especially since they left it cited in their close. Since you said, "his interpretation was within the reasonable bounds of admin discretion," I was asking your thoughts since you seemed to know if it would be allowed or not and I quoted the area in the original closing as you asked for me to clarify. To add emphasis to what I said, "I wanted to confirm if the closer is allowed to cite a policy that wasn't a part of the discussion in the way that occurred." I would still prefer a direct answer from an uninvolved admin, if you would do so. (If you have an issue with the first question, then here is my expanded question: Is the closing user when they are ending the discussion allowed to cite or link to a policy in the way that occurred in 28bytes' closer, even if it was not a part of the discussion or mentioned until then?) --
Super Goku V (
talk)
17:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Note This discussion was recently
reopened by the original closing administrator after I had closed under IAR. I'm further placing the article under
special BLP enforcement as deleting the information on Mr. Earl could deprive him of attention and income that would cause him harm by impairing a source of income during the holiday season.
Jclemens (
talk)
07:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
What the fuck do you think you're playing at? Not only did this DRV categorically not vote to overturn the deletion, your reasoning is ridiculous; since when was Wikipedia a platform to promote people and enable them to earn more money? Has someone representing Earl been paying you or something?
Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)10:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I've vacillated about this one several times. Like others here I'd be tempted to endorse it, but it's not completely clear-cut. The point that the close was not entirely based on arguments to be found in the discussion does look like a valid one. I think the perfect solution would have been if 28bytes had raised his point in the discussion, so the next sysop to come along would have had a complete debate to close.
I'm also a bit concerned that Wikipedia's BLP1E rules are being used to protect criminals from the consequences of their actions. I don't really approve of that. To protect suspected criminals seems absolutely right and reasonable, but once someone's been convicted, we're in a different place entirely: they're a criminal, their conviction is a matter of public record and it's right to disseminate information about it for the protection of those who, you know, aren't criminals.
And finally I'm concerned that this is another point-scoring exercise by a Wikipedia Review successor-site. With closes like this one, we're allowing and encouraging people who were kicked off-Wiki to continue their various moral crusades by alternative means. I don't approve; it's hard to fail at Wikipedia (you've got to be really dumb about how things work here to do that) and those few who've managed it don't deserve a voice here.
Overall I'm going to say that while 28bytes' close was understandable in the context of the debate, and it was within the discretion that DRV traditionally gives to sysops, there are legitimate concerns. It's not right to use the word "overturn", and it won't be productive to relist while Wikipediocracy users and sockpuppets are interested in it, so I'll go with restore.
As a final point, please will the closer of this DRV take into account the effect of Wikipediocracy-canvassing on a biographical article. There are some views and opinions present in this debate that shouldn't be heard.—
S MarshallT/
C09:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
We're not talking about someone who regularly goes out and beats people up, stabs them, or otherwise murdering them. We're talking about someone who has a serious drinking problem, and is almost certainly homeless; one of those is clearly now a medical issue, and the other is not entirely in his control either. I simply cannot therefore agree with your stance of "He's a criminal, so he's not worth protecting" - that's just wrong.
Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)09:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
If anyone is concerned with the behavior of editors on and/or off-wiki, there are venues more appropriate than DRV to pursue them in.
Tarc (
talk)
13:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Also, yet more bullshit canvassing claims are being spouted by someone desperate to belittle others; at no point has it been posted that "all members should go and join the AfD and DRV debates". AfDing it was my idea, and every member is free to do as they please; you should note that The Devil's Advocate is a WO member and yet hasn't followed the "party line" that you're claiming exists.
Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)10:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Oh, please. It's a site run by people who're badly butthurt about Wikipedia, for the benefit of people who're badly butthurt about Wikipedia. Its business is drama-mongering about Wikipedia. To these saddos, getting a Wikipedia BLP deleted is an achievement to be proud of, and this is used to justify the site's existence and focus. And you're trying to pretend there's no "party line"? Riiiiiigght.—
S MarshallT/
C10:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Considering the number of Wikipediocracy posters that have participated in this debate, all of whom are editors in good standing, I would strongly encourage S Marshall to strike those personal attacks that he just made. —
Scott•talk10:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Considering that the WO thread about this article was happy to collage images of
lynching with quotes by me and
The Devil's Advocate from this DRV, and was also happy to engage in
doxing of
Jclemens, I instead thank
S Marshall for calling a spade a spade. Yes, there are also decent people on WO (as Alison, who removed the images from the WO thread) and the odd reasonable talk, but the general assessment is quite correct.--
cyclopiaspeak!11:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
By that logic of "calling a spade a spade", you participate in a project notorious for hosting racism, sexism, historical revisionism, pseudoscience advocacy, religious kookery, and paid promotional materials. Why would you do that? —
Scott•talk11:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The difference is that what you say about WP, while somewhat correct, is explicitly against the stated goals of the project. While it seems that outing and cyberbullying of editors who do not share the WO holy war against the Wiki of All Evils is a substantial and welcomed part of what WO is about. Granted, I see there are at least some opposing views in that thread, including yours. But I also notice that, in the same thread, you oppose these actions only because of their possible tactical failure in this DRV. Quite funny that you name people who politely call out WO "mouth-frothers" while instead people who compare an AfD to lynching are just told it is a "bad idea". --
cyclopiaspeak!12:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I converse with the other posters on WO based on my knowledge of their opinions and the way they operate. Using the same principle here on my first encounter of S Marshall, I have filed him into the category of loud noises with the vocabulary of a fourteen-year-old. If you think that his comments about "really dumb... butthurt... saddos" are polite, you have a problem. Your prejudices about WO have also led you to misread my comments there; that's also your problem, not mine. —
Scott•talk12:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse closure, specifially per MastCell: The question isn't whether you agree with 28bytes' interpretation, but whether his interpretation was within the reasonable bounds of admin discretion. It was. —
Scott•talk10:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse On my reading of the close 28bytes didn't rely on
WP:INDISCRIMINATE as his rationale. Instead he quoted language from
GNG that referred (among other things) to it, in order to explain that the article meeting the GNG would not necessarily mean it should be kept and therefore that the arguments focusing on this did not rebut the
BLP1E and
BLP arguments.
Neljack (
talk)
11:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn Claiming BPL1E applies to individuals known for multiple events is insane. A second insane argument cited by the closing admin is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Can someone please explain how this article in any way resembles a summary-only descriptions of fiction, a lyrics database, an excessive listing of statistics or an log of software updates? Closing admins are supposed to ignore invalid arguments. 28bytes is normally pretty level-headed, but I don't see how this can possibly be construed to be a reasonable close. Let's face it: this is a clear and obvious example of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk)
11:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Can someone please explain how this article in any way resembles a summary-only descriptions of fiction, a lyrics database, an excessive listing of statistics or an log of software updates? Yes. You're starting to create the conditions for a database of people who have been arrested multiple times, if being arrested multiple times (and not the reason behind the arrests) is a claim to notability. As Black Kite indicates below, if you really start going down the route of providing an entry for "the most arrested man in Lexington" do we have an entry for every person who is the most arrested man in their town, or do we restrict our entries to those who have been arrested, what was it, 1000 times or more ?
It's trivia, it's the last item on the news at night, it's the And finally item, newspaper column inch filler, it's padding, and it's fundamentally not encyclopedic in nature, any more than the Yellow Pages is truly encyclopedic.
Nick (
talk)
12:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
That's a gross misinterpretation of policy. The article is prose. It doesn't come close to resembling an index. This is a classic
WP:IDONTLIKE situation which is why those in favor of deletion are bending over backwards to twist policy around to mean things that they don't.
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk)
15:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn. Article meets general notability guideline and is not a case of "one event" notability. The subject has been arrested more than 1000 times, and has become somewhat of a folk hero, not unlike
Leatherman (vagabond). Suggest we get a picture and expand the article.
JehochmanTalk13:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse. (am I supposed to mention that I came here through the ANI thread?) I can easily understand that others in good faith don't think BLP1E applies in this case, even if I disagree. But this was a proper interpretation of consensus at the AFD, and doesn't violate policy, so there are no grounds for overturning. --
Floquenbeam (
talk)
14:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse - Closing admin's rationale was well grounded in policy. This was obviously a borderline case either way, but 28bytes' rationale is sound.
Resolute14:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse- Reasonable reading of consensus. The community is allowed to make editorial decisions in borderline cases like this one, and I think the closing administrator made a reasonable judgment of the result of the community discussion.
ReykYO!15:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn and (shudder) relist. I did not participate in the original AfD, but reading it now, I cannot agree that the original close, while thoughtfully argued, reflected a consensus of the participating editors. Nor can I say that Jclemens's close of the DRV, while also thoughtfully argued, represented a distillation of consensus. Both of these were opinions, joining the others expressed in the discussion. As far as I can see, there has been no consensus. On the merits, I don't think BLP1E is applicable to someone who has been the subject of repeated coverage in multiple media, including national media, over a number of years. I also share S Marshall's concerns, expressed above, about the overuse of the "BLP" mantra to attack certain types of sourced content. There may be other values at stake, but the discussion has not reflected any broad agreement over which way those values cut.--
Arxiloxos (
talk)
15:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn to no consensus BLP1E does not apply to this case in any way, shape, or form, and it was raised by only a handful of editors in the AfD. 28bytes also threw in his own reasons for deleting that were not mentioned at all in the discussion. No one really questioned that the article passed WP:GNG, but rather invoked some other reason for deletion and none of them invoked WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It does not apply in this case anyway. So basically, 28bytes favored a small minority of editors invoking a very novel interpretation of policy and added in his own reasons for deleting the article.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.16:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The idea that I "added in [my] own reasons for deleting the article" is completely false. I weighed the WP:BLP(1E) and WP:GNG arguments put forth by the participants, period. I've made this clear
severaltimes. It's fine if you don't agree with the close, but please do not mischaracterize it.
28bytes (
talk)
17:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Where was the WP:INDISCRIMINATE vote? Also, how exactly did you weigh those arguments? Nearly every editor voting keep firmly rejected BLP1E because the coverage spanned a decade and included multiple events, which is exactly the type of situation where BLP1E is explicitly stated not to apply. The number of those rejecting BLP1E was greater than those invoking it or defending it. Of those who did not invoke BLP1E, their reasons were either undefined, not based in policy, or refuted over the course of the discussion. How you came to conclude that any consensus existed eludes me. I find it especially incredible that an admin of your standing would conclude BLP1E was the consensus.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.17:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The close was not based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it was based on weighing the WP:BLP(1E) and WP:GNG arguments. I've explained this repeatedly. Please read
what I've already written. If you're suggesting I should have "weighed" the merits of the BLP1E argument by counting the number of people who cited it, I'm afraid that it doesn't work that way.
28bytes (
talk)
17:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Wow, you are just picking the arguments that you wish to address, like you just picked the arguments you agreed with in the AfD. That the keep votes overwhelmingly rejected BLP1E per the very reasons the policy gives for rejecting such an argument is what matters.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.17:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
endorse I was not a participant in the discussion, but it seems to me that the burst of watercooler news coverage is reasonably interpreted as
WP:ONEEVENT. I also have to say that the precedent of similar cases in the past of
people being the subject of freak show publicity is that we don't stigmatize them just because the media and internet make a fuss over them.
Mangoe (
talk)
17:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse Quite frankly I'd endorse just about any argument to delete this terrible article. Under no conditions should we be hosting negative articles about borderline-notable living people. If the rules don't permit deletion for this reason they should be modified to allow it. This article adds infinitesimally to the sum total of human knowledge while disparaging a poor person who is fed on by media vultures when the news gets slow. We are better than this. ThemFromSpace18:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
While I fully understand and sympathize with the principle of what you are saying about the article, I think that is a bit misguided. It appears he is well-liked in the Lexington area and on the Internet largely because of his arrest record (he is also apparently a good fella), odd as that may seem to you. He also seems to like the attention it gets him from what I have read of interviews. That aspect was not really made clear in earlier versions of the article, but I think
the version after my changes prior to the DRV being re-opened make create a more sympathetic image of him. More could be done to make it a sympathetic bio that accurately reflects how positively he is perceived and I think it would be good to allow that.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.21:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn. Interpreting BLP1E to apply here is a dramatic overreach of the policy and is not valid. A "single" behavior pattern carried out over more than 1000 iterations is in no way the same thing as a single event. Subject clearly meets
WP:GNG.
—chaos5023 (
talk)
21:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn and relist. Closing admin claims "sufficient participation and a clear enough consensus" here, yet in closing rationale used the spectre of sockpuppetry to "instead focus on the weight of the argument." I find that change difficult to reconcile, especially after the misapplication of BLP1E. --
Norvy(talk)21:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn because WP:BLP1E does not apply to a clear years-long series of events, and so was incorrectly invoked for the close. In addition, the Internet-glomming-on makes this notable on those grounds as well.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
22:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn to no consensus, and relist. A supervote occurs when an admin replaces their discretion for that of other editors. Here, there was no consensus on how to excercize that discretion, and BLP1E, by its terms, does not mandate such a closure. Thus, the close was a supervote. The reason for no consensus was made clear by the sources such as Newsweek, which showed that the person was noted for 'songs, media, and t-shirts' made with this person as their subject. (See past examples in a similar vein:
Emperor Norton and
Captain Streeter). Relist to flesh out the other issues of harm and unencyclopedic material.
Alanscottwalker (
talk)
23:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Who? The past examples, which is why they're called past examples? And the difference that they're dead matters, how? Certainly not for making their lives "one event."
Folk hero come in many different forms, and their multiple run-ins with the lawman are often part of that. --
Alanscottwalker (
talk)
08:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn-- there was no consensus The BLP related arguments are not germain. The article as significant sourcing and thus meets the GNG.01:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dlohcierekim (
talk •
contribs)
Overturn - per Beyond My Ken and others correctly noting the general notability of the article. This should not even have been nominated for deletion. BLP argument is specious, in my view. Let's make this right.
Jusdafax02:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse. First, {{DRV is not AFD2}}. On to the substance, I see a perfectly reasonable closure citing participants' arguments about BLP1E (and why it applies), and then further citing policy that GNG is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for an article. While, technically, it could have been closed as "no consensus", the delete was a reasonable choice, and in line with a common-sense approach that in close calls, BLP should err on the side of caution.
No such user (
talk)
04:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse Most of the "overturn" votes seem to be based on AfD arguments, rather than on the correctness of the closure of the AfD. The closing seems to be an entirely legitimate appraisal of the arguments, and appropriately leans on the side of caution with a BLP.
First Light (
talk)
04:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I think that writing a complete biographical article on Earl is not possible and that this article should be deleted. (
Arrest record of Henry Earl also feels inappropriate.) I need to study the BLP1E arguments more closely before making a bolded recommendation.
Flatscan (
talk)
05:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I think that BLP1E is a stretch, but overall BLP, roughly along those lines, justifies deletion. A new section and shortcut for "known for one thing" is a possible way forward.
Flatscan (
talk)
05:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn to no consensus. There was clearly a wide range of opinion, with Warden making cogent arguments. By contrast, I cannot make any sense out of the closing admin's train of thought. Unlike most of the deleters who made an invalid BLP1E argument, the closer says instead that having actual sources (WP:GNG) only creates a 'presumption', which he can overturn by saying that Wikipedia is not an 'indiscriminate collection of information'. But nowhere does he explain what is indiscriminate information - though I should assume that how the homeless are treated, the fact that the county spends much more money jailing this guy every other night than they would giving him free housing, is something that should never be covered, whereas, say, the diamond collar a celebrity buys for her dog would automatically be notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about the wealthy of the world - we know that whole towns in Pakistan are rarely notable, for example.
Wnt (
talk)
05:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The same Warden who has been abusing Wikipedia for years, and whose main account has been blocked for sockpuppetry, you mean? And if it's a proper town, it WILL be notable; just because there isn't an article on it doesn't make it non-notable. Considering those two fundamental errors in your statement there, it's safe to say the rest is a load of rubbish.
Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)08:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Ad hominem arguments are fallacious. Warden could be the worst wikipedian ever, or the best, and in both cases this would have nothing to do with the value of a specific point he makes.--
cyclopiaspeak!10:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Either people's actions mean they forfeit their right to a voice in this debate, or they don't. But neither of you can have it both ways. Perhaps it's true that, by sockpuppetry or misjudgment, Colonel Warden and/or Jclemens have lost their right to be heard in this debate----in which case the Wikipediocracy people have too, haven't they? Alternatively, if we're prepared to listen to Colonel Warden and/or Jclemens, then we also have to listen to all the white knights from Wikipediocracy who're coming galloping to the rescue of the world's most-arrested man, because, yanno, it's a BLP so delete zomg!—
S MarshallT/
C11:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
He really is quite widely reported as the "World's most arrested man". That's repeated in places like the New York Post, the Huffington Post, and the Daily Mirror. Do those sources fill me with confidence? Not really; it's all churnalism from the original source, which is
The Smoking Gun. I'd want a discussion about reliability of sources before calling him that in the article. But, "complete and utter bollocks"? Really?—
S MarshallT/
C13:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
It's pretty sad that a 42-year-old man is using phrases like "white knights" in a BLP discussion. Please, save that stuff for 4chan or whatever other website you picked it up from. —
Scott•talk13:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
What a contemptible comment. White knights are not a new phrase, but even if they were, there is nothing about someone's age that should disallow them from using a common phrase. You are calling for discrimination against an editor simply because you know one seemingly innocuous biographical fact about him. Just as you are calling for discrimination against a kind of article because it is about someone poor.
Wnt (
talk)
14:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I see there's also some complain about Warden above, but I don't care what that is either. When I look at whether an article should be kept I'm looking at the article, not a bunch of dossiers. I don't care who is what age, what sex, and I don't have the Ph.D. in Astrology required to recognize suspected sockpuppets by behavioral evidence. When I read over the comments, his stood out as particularly reasonable, and so I recognize them as such.
Wnt (
talk)
14:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I don't believe it's really a comment about my age, so much as a veiled threat or warning that the Wikipediocrats will dox me if I carry on. Which does seems likely enough; but if I was concerned about that, I wouldn't put my name and date of birth on my userpage.—
S MarshallT/
C14:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
No, it is a direct statement that I think you are acting childishly, which surprises me given the age you state on your user page. Hope that helps. —
Scott•talk15:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
It's cute to see people like Scott Martin, who babble of ethics on- and off-wiki, resorting to insults, veiled threats and thoughtful arguments as "complete and utter bollocks". Makes you think how trustworthy they are. --
cyclopiaspeak!15:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I see nothing "childish" about S Marshall's responses. From the time of the Fae case, ArbCom has been misinterpreting the guidance people came up with here about outing, but the text is nonetheless quite clear and well-justified in telling people to avoid "opposition research". It is a distraction at best, and the notion that you can take some number off a piece of paper and just because you know it about somebody they start losing rights -- that is the sick core of NSAism. And let's be clear; anyone offsite looking up somebody's name in a directory and posting "dox" is indeed a mere infant pretending to be a secret agent in the shadow of the NSA building.
Wnt (
talk)
15:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Having read through the referenced articles carefully, I agree that the GNG is met. However, the GNG is not a guarantee for inclusion, though exceptions are rare. Participants chose to ignore meeting the GNG as a dominating consideration, and WP:Consensus can overrule any guideline. I remain of the view that the closer closed within admin discretion, but given the strong interest, I support a relist. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
12:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse per MastCell, Resolute and others - the close was a reasonable reflection of consensus and policy-based argument in the deletion discussion. This is not the venue to re-argue the deletion case. --
Anthonyhcole (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
12:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse. The closer correctly cited the actual text of the
GNG's fifth bullet-point which says that coverage creates "an assumption, not a guarantee", that a subject should be included.
JohnCD (
talk)
14:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
People above are saying things like "The article has significant sourcing and thus meets the GNG" to imply that the close was wrong. I am countering that line by pointing out that the closer was correct to realise, and cite the actual GNG guideline as saying, that coverage does not necessarily mean there should be an article.
JohnCD (
talk)
15:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Then you misaprehend the argument. That it passes GNG is basically undisputed -- the issue is whether the closer nonetheless, had discretion to delete, given thier rationale.
Alanscottwalker (
talk)
15:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
What I am saying is that the words he cited: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have stand-alone article" give him just that discretion.
JohnCD (
talk)
16:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
That does not give the closer discretion, otherwise admins could just delete, here, without a
WP:Consensus. The AfD closer is there to act on the editors' discretion not thier own. If they want to excericize thier own discretion, they partcipate in the discussion not close. --
Alanscottwalker (
talk)
16:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The meaning of that policy shouldn't be to give editors or admin discretion. It's true that there are a few other policies that might interfere with the usual GNG standard; most notably it talks about a "standalone article", suggesting that something can be notable enough for an article but still be better to merge if it is convenient to do so. That doesn't mean that whatever political focus group someone can line up is free to delete everything it doesn't like!
Wnt (
talk)
18:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I did not say it gives an admin discretion to delete off his own bat without consensus; but it does give him discretion to interpret the results of "more in-depth discussion" such as an AfD as showing consensus that an article should not be kept even though sources meet the GNG, and that is what happened here.
JohnCD (
talk)
19:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
It does not give the admin power to interpret the discussion, contrary to policy or to find a consensus where none exists. If the admin is going to judge it as meeting the GNG, then they have to give specific consensus based, policy based, reason for deletion, nonetheless. That's not what happened here; no specifically applicable policy based reason was given, nor was it founded in a consensus on that policy.
Alanscottwalker (
talk)
22:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse - the majority of the voters were using the arguments suggested. And just to clarify the
wp:BLP1E argument, a man being arrested for any of the things he has been arrested for is not notable. Therefore, and crucially, none of the individual arrests were notable. The only notable thing is the sum total of non-notable events in the same way that adding individual cards to a house of cards is not notable even if you have a notable house of cards at the end because you've added so many. Or a person who is only notable for running across the Sahara getting a new piece on how they are running across the Sahara every night would still only be notable for running across the Sahara. Therefore he is only notable for one thing - the sum total of non-notable events in the same way that the creator of the world's biggest house of cards would be notable for that whether or not they put out a press release each time they added a card. Thus it is believed by many of those voting that it fit the spirit of
WP:BLP1E. The (second and final) closure decision was reiterating this and the part of the
wp:GNG guideline that said that notable was a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Neonchameleon (
talk)
17:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
But that "analysis" is unsupported by the sources. The subject is not notable for just the arrests according to the sources. If an argument such as yours is without evidence, it is mere wish, guess or caprice. --
Alanscottwalker (
talk)
17:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
It is BLP1E not BLP1T. Being notable for one thing that spans over many events is not the same as being notable for one event. The spirit of BLP1E is that we do not create an article on someone involved in your typical flash-in-the-pan news story. People can say this is about admin discretion, but admin discretion does not mean any admin is allowed to alter the meaning of policy by fiat. Changing the meaning of a "single event" to mean "a single recurring theme in a person's life spanning many events" is to completely upend the meaning of the policy itself.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.17:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
This is straying way too far into re-arguing the AfD, which isn't what DRV is for, but the argument made there was that we aren't considering each individual arrest as an "event", but rather that his notability is from being a multiple-arrestee, i.e. the totality of the arrests is the proverbial "event". That you disagree is duly noted, but more editors are of an opposing point of view.
Tarc (
talk)
17:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
But that's the point. One event means one event, not one class of events. If we consider a totality of events as a single event, then almost every BLP is a BLP1E. A politician is not notable for each single thing they did in Congress, and many of these things would not be notable per se: they are notable because of the whole sum of their career, and the resulting coverage. Same here. It is insane to arm-twist this so far, and, to put it frankly, also the people who support a 1E interpretation know it well: the argument is done in bad faith just because people do not want the article here, and that's the best straw they can grasp. Invoking IAR would be more honest. --
cyclopiaspeak!17:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
That's a bit
WP:OTHERSTUFF-ish, but again, he isn't notable for being arrested here in 2003, arrested there in 2004, and so on, his notability is as a person arrested lots of times. We're looking at the apple pie; you're looking at the apples, flour, cinnamon, and sugar. Also, a politician isn't notable for the sum of his career, he is notable simply because of the office held. A newly-elected Senator could be run over by a bus the day after the election, and still pass the project's notability criteria.
Tarc (
talk)
17:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
DRV can be used when "someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly" and consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments, so the strength of the argument for deletion is a factor to consider here. The argument for a BLP1E deletion requires a novel interpretation of the policy that has no precedent. Being arrested multiple times over the course of one's life is not an event, unless you want to completely upend the meaning of the term "event" for the purposes of this policy. Every keep argument made a strong policy-based argument as to why BLP1E did not apply and those arguing for BLP1E were pushing a novel interpretation without pointing out how the policy actually supported that interpretation or even providing a cogent IAR basis for that interpretation. 28bytes picked favorites and that is all there is to it. It was a supervote.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.18:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
It isn't novel to employ common sense. Mr. Earl isn't the subject of news sources because he was arrested for public intoxication, disorder, etc...in this or that or the other date & time. He is the subject of news sources due to the unusually high number of times he has been arrested over the years. Do you get it? The arrests aren't notable in and of themselves; the totality is. If he were arrested only 4-5 times over the years, he would be an otherwise unknown individual. His fame, as it were, is due to a single factor; the number of times arrested, hence
WP:BLP1E. That is the argument accepted by the closing admin.
Tarc (
talk)
19:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
You can repeat your argument however many times you wish, but it does not change the simple fact that an "event" is not a reference to a series of events as a whole or otherwise. The totality of events still means there is more than one event in play with regards to his notability. What you are doing here is wikilawyering. BLP1E is about people who only come up within the context of a single news story, more specifically it is about low-profile individuals who are not central players in a news story receiving in-depth, persistent coverage in reliable sources. Mr. Earl is the sole focus of several national news stories over the course of at least a decade. Coverage is not limited to "he got arrested again", but consists of several stories discussing how his arrest record made him a local icon and internet celebrity and several stories about certain significant arrests that elaborate on his history of arrests. These are the exact circumstances where BLP1E is said not to apply. It is a novel interpretation of BLP1E to say a series of events with a common theme should actually be treated as one event.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.22:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
You can repeat your argument ad nauseam as well, but it won't make an individual with 15 minutes of fame magically become notable for a series of non-notable events, or be able to overcome a straight-forward application of
WP:BLP1E. Like many DRVs, it comes down to a matter of policy interpretation, and the people on the losing side being rather ungracious in defeat. That will be my last word on the matter.
Tarc (
talk)
23:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
(E/c) Unfortunately, it appears that some have not really read the sources. There is nothing to suggest that the subject is unique for just getting arrested multiple times or that Lexington is a unique arresting prone environment. Other people have no doubt gotten arrested many, many times, in city after city, and no source really notices them. The subject was deemed notable by sources for other things that happened, yes in part related to a 42 year record of multiple incidents, but that is not the only reason why national and regional press became involved writing about the subject. And yes to make "one event" of such a subject is so far out of the realm of the resonable use of language, that it evidences arbitrary and unsupported reasoning. Follow the sources.
Alanscottwalker (
talk)
19:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Tarc and others - I think the underlying question is whether there is community consensus that BLP1E be interpreted in this manner. This is a novel interpretation. I think it's a reasonable change to consider, but I do not agree that this is a good test case or precedent for a policy change. I would rather we have a more general policy discussion and then fit the results of that back onto this case.
You see, that right there is a big part of the problem with this discussion. People on one side just assuming that everyone who thinks there should be an article has some malicious motivation or is just uncaring towards the subject as though such a BLP can only be harmful in intent and effect no matter its contents. That could not be further from the truth and I would like to ask those of you saying this type of shit to please shut the fuck up.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.06:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I do assume that everyone who thinks there should be an article is uncaring toward the subject. I assume that because it's true. I know that it's true because the arguments to keep mostly devolve to citing our own internal notability rules, which unlike BLP and BLP1E have no moral dimension. Profanity and so forth is not a good way to get me to stop believing true things, sorry. Intent is not at issue here.
Herostratus (
talk)
16:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
It's either that ("everyone who thinks there should be an article is uncaring toward the subject") or some editors want to turn Wikipedia into a tabloid. In this case it may be both.
First Light (
talk)
17:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
You assume that because you are presumptuous and guided by emotion, not because you have some greater insight into the hearts and minds of random strangers on the Internet. The problem is that there are too many people just like you who are so set on seeing this article one way that it makes a rationale discourse nigh impossible.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.07:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Weak overturn: I'm not convinced 1E applies here, as the coverage has been ongoing for ten years, and it's coverage that Earl does not find too onerous either. That said, the limited amount makes me pause for thought as it may symbolise marginal notability. In addition, the idea that BLP doesn't apply once you get a criminal record is simply untrue; BLP applies to all living people, even people like
Ian Brady. Sceptre(
talk)05:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn. It's just impossible to rationally fit this under the actual terms of the BLP1E policy. One event means one event, not one concept, reason or whatever. In particular, it doesn't mean "one basis for notability." There may well be a case that the subject doesn't really possess encyclopedic notability -- just like people with gigantic home Christmas light displays, people who declare themselves Pope, perennial political candidates with fringe platforms who garner habdfuls of votes, etc. -- but BLP1E is not an appropriate rubric to decide such cases. BLP1E sets standards for determining when the person should be subsumed within the event, not for eliminating coverage entirely.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (
talk)
00:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
for determining when the person should be subsumed within the event There is your article: Alcohol and other drug addicts that end up homeless gather loads of arrests due to public intoxication, sleeping rough in doorways, being obnoxious to the general citizenry, and not being wanted in 'our' neighbourhood. This guy is an example of all of that. If you had such an article there wouldn't be this problem. Unfortunately it is not an article that any of you are capable of writing, and therefor you are inappropriately elevating the example to that of article status. This guy is in the news for one thing being arrested multiple times because he is drunk and homeless. We can see that this is a one event thing because if this were a public figure then his/her arrests for drunkenness would be one part of a bigger biography, here the arrests are the whole article and in all other situations would be mostly deleted as WP:UNDUE, but if that is done it would remove the entire basis for the article, and thus we see clearly that the article is about one thing.
John lilburne (
talk)
10:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn and relist. I have read and re-read
the AfD discussion, including the concerns about offwiki canvassing and comments by anons. However, I'm just not seeing the discussion resolving to a consensus for deletion. Instead, I would have closed this as "No consensus, defaults to Keep". Considering all the recent controversy, the best option here would probably be to relist the AfD. There's sure to be a large number of comments from a wide section of the community, so hopefully a consensus will be easier to judge on a second round. --
Elonka10:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn to no consensus There was no consensus to delete. The article's subject clearly passes the general notability guidelines, and does not violate
WP:BLP1E, since it wasn't just one event he got coverage for. He has received coverage over the years in multiple major news sources. The closing administrator's closing statement sounds like a
WP:supervote, he claiming he can just ignore the
WP:GNG. There was no clear consensus in the discussion to ignore the GNG, it all looking like a case of
WP:I don't like it to me.
DreamFocus14:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn to keep. Per Dream's analyses above, the keep votes in the AfD were based on policy and an accurate assessment of the ongoing coverage in the sources. Also, having devoted quite a bit of time to helping old people and drug addicts over the years, Im in agreement with Advocate that the presence of this article is more likely to help the subject than hurt. It's not all that collegial to make unequivocal suggestions that those who want to keep this article don't care about the subject. Beware moral certainty!
FeydHuxtable (
talk)
18:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn to keep? There is absolutely no way that is a valid conclusion from that AfD. No consensus is a valid reading, but a clear consensus to keep? No chance. Most of the votes on both sides were policy-based, disregarding those of the IP-hopper of course.
Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)21:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Trying to meet you halfway, I can agree several intelligent AfD voters sincerely considered BLP1e or just plain BLP justified deletion. But for me, there was sufficient evidence based reasoning to almost entirely discount the delete votes and thus close the AfD as keep. 1E doesn't apply when theres been successive coverage over the years for different events, and for different reasons – both for the arrests and for becoming an internet celebrity. I don't know enough about the specifics or American culture to confirm Clemens is correct that deletion hurts the subject financially – though I know Clemens is an American and a man of considerable experience, so Im happy to trust his judgment here. I do have the experience to be confident that Advocate is correct in saying keeping the article is likely to benefit the subject psychologically. So for me, the spirit of BLP actually favours keeping the article. Im not saying we should keep articles because they benefit the subject regardless of notability, but as the subject clearly passes GNG, there's no reason to delete. That said, Id not be unhappy with an overturn to no consensus – sensible editors like Dream have called it that way, and it may be they've got the best handle on this.
FeydHuxtable (
talk)
22:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Just want to clarify that I do not see any indication this Wikipedia article has had or will have any effect on the man positive or negative. My comments concerned the reality that attitudes regarding him on the Internet and in Lexington are generally positive. So the idea that any attention would be negative and harmful towards him and thus something from which he needs to be protected, is misguided.--
The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.00:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Each acting role is different, whereas each dressed Turkey is the same, and each arrest for being drunk is the same. In most cases he'll be being picked up by the same cops, from the same sidewalk, and delivered to the same drunk cell, processed by the same custody Sargent, brought up in the morning before the same Judge, given the same public defender, and sent to the same jail. This particular Turkey doesn't even have the variety of being stuffed one year with nuts and the next with lemons.
John lilburne (
talk)
16:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Recommendation to closing admin - I believe we have No consensus as to whether BLP1E covers this situation; I recommend following up on the BLP1E policy talk page and Village Pump to discuss as to whether BLP1E covers such a series of events. That general question is not best resolved here and now in this particular article or DRV. Policy changes must happen on the policy pages. I am going to initiate those policy discussions.
Georgewilliamherbert (
talk)
03:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn to no consensus/ relist. The subject is not eligible for BLP1E and I don't see the consensus for deletion, especially considering the offwiki canvassing.
Cavarrone20:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
There was and is offsite discussion. That site has a historical leaning toward deleting BLPs. I think that falls under "votestacking" and "stealth canvasing" Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged.... I think it's plain that CANVAS applies here and said canvasing had an impact on the AfD. The closer made note of that in fact.
Hobit (
talk)
20:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I really, really dislike this line of argument, as it smacks of trying to get the result overturned on a technicality rather than on merit. Some people here seem to have some magically fanciful notion that an XfD/DRV/etc can only attain its purest, untainted form if those who comment therein arrive there via happenstance. That's not how these discussions work however; we don't do random polling or sampling, you know and I know that editors seek out the discussions they wish to comment in, and skip the ones that they do not. Some editors may find them via the categorizations of deletion discussions, others may discuss them at the Rescue Squad page, while still others may e-mail each other off-site about deletions in a common interest area. All of that is secondary to the substance of the opinions and the standing of the speaker within the project community. If 10 editors read about this at Wikipediocracy and arrived here to enter in reasoned opinions, the impetus that got them here isn't relevant. IMO the only time off-wiki stuff is a concern is if a bunch of single-purpose accounts show up, or if editors with a vested interest in a topic area post highly-volatile/emotive reasons to keep or delete.
Tarc (
talk)
21:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
<ec>First, I was arguing that there was canvasing, which Luke claimed was a lie (?!). But as to bias, I do think
WP:CANVAS exists for a good reason and that when canvassing biases the discussion the numeric effects of it need to be taken into account. In this case we've got a lot of people supporting the same "huge stretch" that something which has seen coverage over decades and has occurred over decades is a single event. Now if they have the stronger argument, great. But their numbers shouldn't play a huge role when determining either in the AfD or the DRV's consensus. Tarc, I may be mistaken, but did you argue that the Article Rescue Squadron and it's tagging was nothing but a CANVASing body at one point and so should be shut down? Sorry if I'm confusing you with someone else.
Hobit (
talk)
22:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm perfectly fine with how the ARS is functioning now; back then, my beef was with some of their members' "keep I like it!" voting mentality that never actually evaluated the case at hand, and with the Rescue Template that they used to be able to place on the article itself. Both of those situations have been resolved, the former by attrition of some of the worst offenders, the latter by deletion of the template. I'm still not convinced that like-minded numbers showing up is a bad thing, provided that their arguments are sound. I mean, how is it any different than when we let, say, the Transformers Wiki-Project know that an article within their scope is up for deletion.? Why is that kind of "canvassing" OK, esp when it will likely end up attracting editors who will vote along the same lines?
Tarc (
talk)
22:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
We're normally okay with notifications that are transparent and neutrally-worded. Offwiki discussions, particularly on a Wikipedia Review successor site, are seen as attempted vote-stacking and regarded with mistrust, as 28bytes' close rightly indicates. It's not unreasonable to contend that 28bytes should have given more weight to WP:CANVAS in the close.—
S MarshallT/
C23:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
True. But it is reasonable to discount the numeric effects of the canvassed !votes. That's what we generally do with canvassed !votes. If they have the stronger argument, that's great. But if not, their large numbers shouldn't be treated as a reason to override our actual policies and guidelines or to interpret them in a novel way.
Hobit (
talk)
02:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Given that we are closing in on sixty !votes here, it's reasonable to assume that there is plenty of recruitment to go around. Anyone can go read what's on Wikipediocracy, so it's plenty transparent, and anyone can see that there is hardly unanimity there about these issues. Also, by my estimation no more than three active WO people participated in the AfD, and one said delete, one said keep, and the third merely commented. It seems to me that the continued reference to That Other Site is intended to poison this discussion through a rather dubious use of guilt by tenuous association.
Mangoe (
talk)
02:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
But it wasn't the numbers, it was the stronger argument that was made, according to the closing rationale. Also, if you read through that thread you'd also see that there are several users there who believe the article should have been kept. For all the site's faults, it is not a Borg-like monolith of one voice & one way to vote. Recall that in the AfD,
cyclopia said that he discovered the deletion discussion via Wikipediocracy as well. An external website that generates as much controversy as it does is going to attract as many critics and watchdogs as it does followers, so while some of the individual posts in that thread may be non-neutral (and there is no expectation that they should be, as they are not bound by this project's neutrality policies), you cannot say that the audience (many silent, many non-members) is partisan. So if the discussion attracted participants form all sides of the debate, then the "OMG CANVAS!" claims begin to ring a bit hollow, we would have to conclude. I'm sorry, but all you and a few others here are doing a bit of wiki-lawyering here, like a politician who lost a race trying to get his opponent disqualified because he really lived in another district for a few months or forgot to dot an i and cross a t on his tax returns or something.
Tarc (
talk)
03:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
It was the stronger argument that was made in 28bytes' opinion. Let's face the facts about Wikipedia administrators: although they're generally a well-meaning bunch, there are children and self-confessed drug users among their number, and passing the popularity contest at RFA doesn't give you infallible judgment. That's why it's right that admins' decisions are open to criticism and questioning. The purpose of deletion review is to let us do that in a formal, structured way. Referring to a policy like WP:CANVAS doesn't mean we're lawyering.
It's not unreasonable to contend that 28bytes' decision was unusual in several respects. It's accepted, of course, that Wikipedia will generate controversy and offsite discussion. But in any deletion discussion, a canvassing post on an offsite messageboard is always going to be a cause for concern and that's doubly true of a Wikipedia Review successor-site which contains a disproportionate number of posters who seem to be using the place as some form of post-Wikipedia therapy.—
S MarshallT/
C08:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Facepalmthere are children and self-confessed drug users among their number is a bizarre comment to make. Even if that were true, 28bytes is neither. Adding to that your repeated personal attacks at the various editors, admins and arbitrators here that converse at Wikipediocracy, I can only conclude that you're trying to troll half of the participants in this discussion. —
Scott•talk10:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Are you saying that there aren't children or self-confessed drug users in our admin corps? Or are you saying that it's bizarre that I would mention it? And are you seriously saying that Wikipediocracy users are respected, level-headed editors, admins and arbitrators in good standing who I'm unfairly characterising?—
S MarshallT/
C12:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
S Marshall, since when is "drug usage" remotely relevant here? Particularly as that is a VERY broad term. Your desperation is hilariously pathetic. And John, I seriously doubt that 28bytes and Vigilant are one and the same...
Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)13:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Regarding "It was the stronger argument that was made in 28bytes' opinion"...yes! That's the heart of the matter here; XfDs should not be overturned because of a difference of opinion. Otherwise, why should any admin step up to close any deletion discussion that is remotely heated/controversial? As some
wise men once said, contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes, it isn't an argument.
Tarc (
talk)
13:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
To review errors, e.g. conflict-of-interest, a supervote, a mishandling of policy, and the like. I filed my first DRV ever a few weeks ago when in my opinion an admin fundamentally misapplied "Not Censored" policy when choosing to retain
WP:CUM as a valid redirect to a project page. Not enough agreed with my point-of-view however, so the redirect remains. Such is the life of a consensus-driven project.
Tarc (
talk)
17:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I think that what we're discussing is whether there was consensus for deletion or not, and I think that's a fair question for a DRV. 28bytes' opinion was that there was. It's reasonable for a deletion review to discuss whether that view is correct, though, isn't it?—
S MarshallT/
C18:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
That's an AfD argument, not a DRV argument. We're only here to review the closing admin's actions, to which an "I disagree" is not sufficient grounds to overturn.
Tarc (
talk)
22:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The DRV argument would be that the discussion was defective and reached the wrong conclusion (either because of outside interference with the process, or because there were sources the discussion failed to unearth and consider). We generally do tolerate arguments in this form at DRV.—
S MarshallT/
C23:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Let me clarify: this is not a clear cut case. The closer's admin decided that the majority decided it is BLP1E case. My point is that the agrument of the majority was less solid than the closer thinks. The article describes at least three different phenomena associated with the guy: (a) his arrests (2) trolling of jail's website and internet phenomenon. The closer has a right to dismiss a faulty argument. My argument is that the closer failed to do so.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
02:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse due to no particularly good reason being given to overturn. I'd say BLP1E applies. The 1E in question is specifically the 1000th arrest, which was the only one anyone apparently cared about and (surprise!) according to the article wasn't even really the 1000th arrest anyway. Even setting that aside, we have miles of precedent that doing something non-notable multiple times doesn't make it notable, hence we don't have articles on the vast majority of world record holders, for example. We're also being given the (extremely silly) excuse that deleting the article will deprive him of publicity--which actually sounds like an excellent reason NOT to have an article.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind23:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn to no consensus: I have no doubt that Mr. Earl, after being arrested 1300+ times, is very concerned about whether he is covered on wikipedia, regardless of the extensive coverage his plight has received in the news over years. BLP1E doesn't apply from my review of the sourcing, but we are at DRV - so, was there a consensus to delete? Plainly not. Its foolhardy to claim otherwise, no matter how many words are used to justify any deletion. The closer wanted to delete the article, so he did. Mr. Earl and wikipedia won't be improved one iota by that result. (P.S. I wasn't recruited to this discussion, I saw deletionist cries emanating from my watchlist and figured I see what the trainwreck was about.)--Milowent • hasspoken02:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I see nothing wrong with the administrative action. The delete votes made a perfectly legitimate argument, they were in the majority, and the closer weighed their arguments more than the keep votes, as he felt the policy-based arguments were stronger on the delete side. This seems to be a by-the-book close. If the keep votes had been in the majority and the delete votes were all based on
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then maybe someone could make the argument that consensus was overruled by a supervote, but I just can't see that here.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
07:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse The AFD discussion and the closing rationale were rather embarrassing aberrations. The best thing is to draw all this to a close and lose the article (which will be no significant loss and could even be a benefit). Then we can resume normal service. Best wishes to all concerned.
Thincat (
talk)
11:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This article was voted to be deleted mainly on the basis of
WP:CRYSTAL, which I would agree with. But considering it subsequently proved to be a hoax, and that it obtained a significant amount of press attention by dedicated websites both before and after the fact was made known, I feel there are ground for the page to be re-created and adjusted accordingly. --
Jasca Ducato (
talk)
16:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Appears to meet the GNG. Arguments like CRYSTAL and OR don't make a lot of sense given that CRYSTAL doesn't apply to well-sourced things even if hoaxes and it isn't OR if it's sourced. I'm tempted to !vote to overturn (potentially to keep). My personal preference would have been a redirect to
Fallout 4 (also under discussion for deletion, but I'd say this material would save it...).
Hobit (
talk)
21:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn - to no consensus. There's enough sources to plausibly argue that it passes
WP:N, while they're perhaps weak enough to plausibly argue it fails
WP:N (at least, my perusal of them suggests they're not so far to one side or the other that the closing admin can entirely discount either position). Marginal with respect to WP:N and marginal with respect to headcount should be no consensus. The WP:CRYSTAL argument is what comes out of the north end of a south-facing bull, and should be entirely ignored by the closing admin, of course.
WilyD10:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse deletion but no prejudice for re-creation. The article as it stands is a mess but there may be sources out there to support a completely re-written-from-scratch article. Яehevkor✉12:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse deletion. For starters, I don't go by a head-count and agree with closer's summary. The deletion argument was not that there aren't reliable sources (or that articles about hoaxes aren't allowed), it's that none of them were in-depth and all were routine video game news coverage. They are only considered in-depth, when it is a review, a commentary, discussion of cultural impact, at least editor's opinion, etc. Here they simply reported the website and followed the fake clues and then reported it was a hoax. Previews, PRs and sensationalized articles like this are commonly dismissed for GNG, because they carry no material besides the original primary source. It's not that most of keep !votes did not say there weren't any sources, it's that these sources weren't shown to adequately satisfy GNG's in-depth criteria. While many users said then and here about abundance of sources, this only satisfies "multiple" and "reliable" (
WP:VG/RS) GNG bits. I also respect that others have a different view on GNG threshold that I happen to disagree with in this case. I also don't think material should all be deleted, and a mention in Fallout 4 or some list of hoaxes would be perfectly fine. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK16:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse deletion if anything, I'd say that the fact that Thesurvivor2299 turned out to be a fanmade hoax is a strong argument that the AFD got it right and a reminder of exactly why we have rules like WP:N and CRYSTAL. The supposition that being a fanmade hoax site somehow made it MORE notable eather than less is just bizarre. If anything, it's very much the opposite.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind20:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse deletion. The article was a total mess at the time of its deletion. A circumstance in which it was recreated would require a complete rewrite, at a time when the sources had calmed down. The page should not be restored to the way it was prior to its deletion.
CR4ZE (
t)
00:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - I do agree with some editors above that the article is currently a mess; if the deletion is overturned I or someone else should fundamentally rewrite it.
Overturn to NC topic clearly meets GNG. Numeric consensus wasn't strong enough come close to overcoming that. Many arguments for deletion were weak at best (CRYSTAL? really?) though so were many of the keep arguments. But you need something stronger than that discussion to delete something with a dozen sources solely on the topic including at least two mainstream sources.
Hobit (
talk)
05:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Why is CRYSTAL not a valid argument? GNG is a guideline, CRYSTAL is a policy. I've seen CRYSTAL denoted as an invalid argument several times now, but I'm not sure I understand why. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK10:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
CRYSTAL might apply to Fallout 4 and would certainly apply to Fallout 5. But I don't see how it could apply to a website that clearly exists and has coverage. Obviously you see it applying here, could you explain why?
Hobit (
talk)
13:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
"Obviously you see it applying here" -- I did not say so, it obviously doesn't. You can see my above statement concerns GNG only. CRYSTAL was before it was revealed as true/hoax and the article did not adequately represent this, most editors did not alter their arguments with that development. I merely asked why you mentioned CRYSTAL specifically among other arguments and why you described it the way you did -- "CRYSTAL? really?". I can see way less valid reasons, such as HOAX or just "per" votes. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK14:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Ah, now I'm really lost. We both agree CRYSTAL doesn't apply. I don't feel it _ever_ applied as the website existed the whole time of the discussion (and you disagree with that? I can't really tell). Could you explain what you are trying to get at? In any case, if people !vote to delete for reason X and X no longer applies, those !votes should be discounted (not ignored, just counted for less).
Hobit (
talk)
14:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Website existed, but coverage was a one-time news event (easily coverable in 2-3 sentences in game's article if it was real or in some hoax list if it wasn't), while the article implied otherwise. CRYSTAL applied because editors were making assumption of how the site will or won't turn out, while is yet hadn't. Anyway, that's besides the point, I just asked what you meant, that's all. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK16:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Ah, got ya. I'd argue that we don't normally delete because the article is badly written (though
WP:TNT does have its place). But now I understand your point. Thanks.
Hobit (
talk)
20:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn. Closing admin admitted it could be kept as no consensus "without batting an eye", then said he thought the deleters had the better argument (aka supervote?). But WP:Crystal does not apply now at all, and in fact, it never applied even before the hoax was revealed. That policy does not prohibit speculations about future events that are sourced, as a part of explaining why a site is of interest to multiple publications.
Wnt (
talk)
19:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Recreate As far as I can tell at the time of the review the decision was a fair reflection of the consensus, and of the website. However as a revealed hoax with coverage as a hoax it is now notable even if the information in the old article is best used as source. The situation has changed.
Neonchameleon (
talk)
13:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I was advised to have the image's deletion reviewed here. This image was deleted without one single vote of either keep or delete. There was one comment saying that only one image must be used, but that person didn't say either the original or the re-release edition. In contrast,
the other discussion says that two different album covers are good enough for another album,
Touch (Sarah McLachlan album). Should consensus be straightforward or inconsistent? I did advise administrators to not delete the image without consensus, but the advise was ignored. Oh yes, almost forgot: the album cover was also discussed in
WT:non-free content/Archive 60#Choosing one of album and singles covers of a similar work.
George Ho (
talk)
00:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment. Maybe
WP:FFD isn't the best forum for perceptive consensus building and relisting until happy agreement has been reached. Also, the instructions for closers are rather different from other deletion venues "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised".
[3] In this case no objections had been raised (but no one supported deleting this particular image either).
Thincat (
talk)
20:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
If there are multiple files and it is unclear which ones we should keep, it may be better to use
WP:NFCR instead. Maybe it is better to simply list this case there. However, if an article fails
WP:NFCC#3a, then something must be deleted per policy, although it is difficult to decide which image(s) if there only is consensus that something is to be deleted but no consensus about what that something is. --
Stefan2 (
talk)
00:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overturn and relist we have longstanding precedents for multiple cover artwork when RS'es cover the difference,
Virgin Killer being the most notable example that springs to mind. Regardless, per the PROD precedent, any 'unless anyone objects' deletion that has someone object after the deletion's closure is routinely restored and immediately eligible for a more detailed deletion discussion, which I think is the best way forward here.
Jclemens (
talk)
09:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
relist I think given there was no discussion deletion was acceptable. But now that someone has raised a reasonable objection it's time to have that discussion.
Hobit (
talk)
22:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - For your information, I did upload this image, and regrettably nominated it for deletion. If you can overturn the deletion and then "withdraw" my FFD nomination, that would be fine. As advised, I can have both album covers of
In My Tribe reviewed in
WP:NFR.
George Ho (
talk)
02:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
You deleted the page started for Kevin L. McCrudden. Stating it was "promotional." How is anything "biographical" not "promotional?"
There were several news sources and news clips given as "objective sources" and even a page from The United States Congress.
What information do you need then in order to assign or move this worthy page forward?
How or when do we know if you have responded? Where do we receive notice? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.114.230.83 (
talk)
19:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)reply
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review . I would not necessarily restore an article like this even temporarily, but it will be easier to see the depth of the problems with the text available,; it's at
Kevin L. McCrudden. With respect to notice, the username under which the article was contributed was
User:Kevin McCrudden, so the notice was properly paced at the same time the deletion was requested, on that user's talk page,
User talk:Kevin McCrudden. DGG (
talk )
19:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse the speedy deletion. To me the the article very clearly is covered by the
WP:CSD#G11 criterion. Although I can find parts of the article which do not seem promotional (e.g. the last paragraph) it needs a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic in tone.
Thincat (
talk)
21:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse per Thincat. I'll admit I didn't make it all the way to the last paragraph, but it met G11 before that no matter how it finished.
Hobit (
talk)
21:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Thank you for taking a look at this. The discussion is that there are thousands of pages about people that haven't done what Mr. McCrudden has done. He was named specifically as the creator of National Motivation & Inspiration Day during the debate of H. Res 308 on 12/18/2001.
He is a published author with books and audiobooks on Amazon, iTunes and Barnes & Noble. All of which are neutral, non partisan sites.
His appearances on national and international TV are on unbiased sites. All of the links to all of these sites are on his web sites.
How can we have someone begin a page with these very legitimate links and pages?
In order to write an article about person you will need links to neutral sources which discuss the person in question in reasonable detail which allow us to establish the notability of the person, see
WP:NOTABILITY and the sidebar in it for subject-specific guidelines. Further, your article must be based only on information in these sources and this information must be presented without superlative terms (see
WP:PEACOCK).
Staszek Lem (
talk)
00:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Thank you. I guess my concern is how does any page about someone NOT come across as "promotional?"
I understand the superlatives, but we have provided pages from the United States Congress. Amazon, iTunes. Barnes & Noble. Fox News. ABC News. How are these NOT objective?
National Motivation & Inspiration Day was passed by The United States Congress on 12/18/2001 after the tragic events of 9-11-01. H. Res 308 is the resolution that was passed declaring January 2nd National Motivation & Inspiration Day.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hres308
? I'm so sorry. I am just not getting you guys. How is the Congressional Record, Amazon, iTunes, Apple and Fox News NOT "reliable external, independent sources?" We must be missing something?
Yes, you are missing something, namely the parts in my previous reply highlighted in boldface (since I did suspect you will miss them). Now, please explain which part of Kevins's biography is based on, e.g. Amazon and iTunes links?
Staszek Lem (
talk)
18:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I apologize. So, "discuss the person" Kevin McCrudden. Is that what you're saying?
Is this what you mean? We were so preoccupied defending why he deserves a page, we weren't giving you the specifics you needed. Is that what was happening? I thought we were providing information for someone else to write the article though?
I hope we're getting closer to what you needed. Is this enough to get the ball rolling? Do you need us to supply you with links to fill in blanks?
Your replies clearly demonstrate that you fail to understand the nature of our requirements and our objections despite a long discussion. You failed to answer direct questions addressed to you. Therefore regardless the merits of Kevin McCrudden,I see no point to talking to you further, sorry. According to your policy,
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, I would suggest you to abandon this issue. If he is as notable a person as you claim, then let somebody else to write the article.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
20:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I apologize for not understanding your cryptic note in bold that said,
(In order to write an article about person you will need links to neutral sources which discuss the person in question in reasonable detail which allow us to establish the notability of the person, see
WP:NOTABILITY and the sidebar in it for subject-specific guidelines. Further, your article must be based only on information in these sources and this information must be presented without superlative terms)
I'm sorry you feel it's a waste of time. This is our third attempt to have a page loaded for Mr. McCrudden. It has been over a decade since the creation of National Motivation & Inspiration Day, which was passed by Congress. I just don't know what more of an objective site you can find. It's just fact. No superlatives. His books and audiobooks are just fact. No superlatives there either. They are on sale on internationally recognized web sites. So, forgive us for not getting "your language "
Our original request was to ask if there is a way that someone can build this page. Otherwise, we would do it, if we knew how. We don't. It's like asking us to speak Greek. We don't.
Is there someone else we can have review this? A "Supervisor" of sorts?
We have tried to be polite, but it seems there is some condescension that we don't understand. We are reading the sentences and they do not make sense.
69.114.230.83 (
talk)
20:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)reply
If you cannot handle the phrase "neutral sources which discuss the person in question in reasonable detail", then you probably are not in a position to do anything in wikipedia. A venue to start an article if you don't know how to do this is
WP:AFC (I assume you know how to click a mouse on a blue text.). However if the phrase "see
WP:NOTABILITY and the sidebar in it for subject-specific guidelines" is cryptic for you, then I am afraid it will be extremely difficult to help you. A "Supervisor" for this issue is wikipedia community, and it looks like the community does not in favor of your issue. We do have "supervisors of sorts", but they are only to handle acute issues harmful for wikipedia: we (including "supervisors") are all volunteers here, working in our free time to build encyclopedia. All typical, everyday, "
small claims court", issues are handled by
a consensus of wikipedians who have free time and are willing to spend it on the issue.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
17:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Staszek. Please understand that we appreciate your time, but there is still some room for miscommunication here.
You have clearly once again stated that your direction was "neutral sources which discuss the person" in question in reasonable detail." BUT you have still not answered how verbal record of Mr. McCrudden on the floor of The United States Congress, on National TV interviews, and Books and Audiobooks written and spoken by Mr. McCrudden DO NOT meet the criteria of "neutral sources?" Please. Explain how these are NOT "neutral sources?"
There are literally thousands of Wiki pages on people that have done nothing close to what Mr. McCrudden has done and yet, they have Wiki pages?
Truly. We are sorry that you seem frustrated, as are we. There is no question of his "NOTABILITY" it's just a matter of how you are willing to read it.
If we are NOT doing it properly, we have asked several times if there is someone that we can work with to make sure it is done properly. Please advise and please note that this is nothing personal at all, we do not know you and you do not know us. We are just trying to get something done that is long overdue. That's all.
Staszek. Thank you again for your time and patience.
Thank you for asking a specific, answerable question. This question means that you did not follow my repeated advice "see
WP:NOTABILITY and the sidebar in it for subject-specific guidelines". Let me move your computer mouse for you. The page
WP:NOTABILITY must be perused whenever you start an article on a no-so-well known subject whose notability may be contested. Therefore I advised you to start from it. Further, a rather prominent sidebar in it contains links to rules for specific subject categories; in our case "People" fits best, and since we have a problem, you must read it carefully. Its first section, "Basic criteria" contains an answer to your question.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
19:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Being a "friend" of a Congressman and getting him to plug your pet idea is not a sign of notability. Especially since Congress, given half a chance, would create a day honoring whoever invented flavored Pringles. There are states where the legislature proclaims a special day to honor every Eagle Scout.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (
talk)
00:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse - no reasonable assertion of notability other than the day passed by the United States Congress. And the link in the archived page is broken; the link to the article does not mention Kevin McCrudden in any way at all and so doesn't show that he had anything to do with what is, after all, mostly empty words from politicians unless accompanied by funding. It also doesn't create the day - it supports the goals of the day; a much lower standard to meet so even that isn't notable. A third party (non-press-release) news article to establish this would help a lot. The American Motivation Awards seem almost entirely non-notable. The
only source I've found to mention them outside youtube and the awarder themselves starts
"Our good friend Kevin McCrudden" - I've seen more notable awards that are given away by individual blogs. His books? I've only checked
one - but it was published through a
vanity press (and has no amazon reviews) - massively failing
wp:NAUTHOR. And he's appeared on Fox News. One or two appearances in the news does not make you notable. And neither does creating a local magazine or founding your own company (or every small business owner would be). If that is genuinely the best you can do for Mr McCrudden, he has a long way to go before he passes
wp:GNG. And yes, there are less notable people on Wikipedia
wp:OTHER - but I doubt that many of them had such a flagrantly eyecatching biography
wp:PEACOCK and list of unsupported assertions and phrases such as "which may be acknowledged as the most significant change / addition to"
wp:WEASEL. Such breaches of normal Wikipedia tone and style check whether such pages are ones that need to be improved to match
wp:Style or should simply be deleted. The answer here has been obvious. Question Does going through an AFD review count as being deleted through the AfD rather than
wp:Speedy process? Meaning that if this article is recreated does it qualify under
wp:G4?
Neonchameleon (
talk)
14:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
We never realized that Wikipedia was run by such biased, closed minded people, that are so judgmental. None of you that are critiquing and judging have created a day passed by The United States Congress, have you? Nor did thousands of speakers before him and his name is actually mentioned on the floor and is therefore part of the Congressional Record and what is a Congressman going to say, "he's an enemy?" Many of your comments are intentionally derogatory, hurtful and you think you're being funny or or smug or something.
We thought we were dealing with legitimate people with a legitimate interest. You sound like some High Schoolers trashing someone. Have you read his book? Did you see who has spoken in favor of his book? Maslow's Hierarchy has been taught the same way for 60 years to millions of students, making the same assumptions, until the introduction of Mr. McCrudden's 21st Century Multidimensional Hierarchy of Needs. Have you guys written a book? If you had, you would realize that regardless how it's published in today's publishing world, it's about the message. If you did research, you would know that Mr. McCrudden's book has been sold all over the world. Have you done that? Was it Truman or FDR that made the quote about people making judgements from the stands, that aren't actually in the game?
If being on national TV. Selling books world wide. Having legislation passed by Congress, NYS and Suffolk County, working with hundreds of media companies, creating "Sales Universities," running for Public office and being declared the winner by a major daily newspaper and losing in a recount, as well as being on Cablevision, Fox and ABC TV, as well as national radio programs are all things that make him NOT worthy, I wonder what makes someone "noteworthy" or "notable."
Unfortunately, you have now made this seem very personal and made attacks on his character. This now almost seems like, "bullying" and character assassination. Quite the opposite of what we had wanted to accomplish. Mr. McCrudden's accomplishments are quite unique and more than enough to qualify him to have a page on Wikipedia. We are sorry that we didn't present information from objective sources like Congress, Fox News and ABC News that somehow weren't objective enough.
We stated clearly, we were looking for your help. Somehow, it became a bithfest filled with prima donnas making nasty, condescending comments.
The comments you are making acknowledge exactly why he is noteworthy, but it's your biased judgement that is declaring he is note noteworthy.
From my observation there is a vast amount of bias in this discussion. However all of it is coming from you; the rest of us wouldn't know Mr McCrudden from Adam (which is part of the point). No I haven't read his vanity-press produced book. And so far as I can tell nor has anyone else except for his friends and the people he pushes it to. If you look at
Who Are You? Become the Very Best U That U Can Be (sic) there is not one single Amazon review. Not just no reviews somewhere notable - but not even Amazon has any reviews on the subject. Have I written a book? Yes. What I didn't then do was pay someone to publish it as McCrudden did. And I didn't then have it put on Amazon, currently ranked over #3,500,000 (i.e. there are more than three and a half million better selling books through Amazon). I've a friend with a badly received trilogy published ten years ago who's still ranked over #2,000,000 despite the attrition in Amazon rankings over time. And he's barely notable as an author. As for your claim about the teaching of Maslow's Hierarchy, show me three accredited universities that are teaching it - rather than his consultancy and a couple of people that have hired his consultancy are giving out his handouts (as google shows). And for the record people have been looking at multidimensional versions of Maslow's hierarchy of needs
at least as far back as 1989, meaning that the claim making him the first vanishes in a puff of smoke. His
sole entry in the congressional record is "I would also like to thank my constituent and my friend, Kevin McCrudden, whose birthday it is today, for coming up with this idea and for working closely with me and my staff to see that this comes to fruition." No discussion in depth. The more you show, the more I investigate, the less notable he looks. And perhaps you would care to show where I have made things personal about him rather than shown that he himself is not notable by Wikipedia's standards, and that the biography of him that was deservedly deleted was in breach of Wikipedia's style guidelines. (Other than calling him Kevin McCrud which was unintentional and for which I apologise). Accusations of personal attacks should be demonstrated or retracted. But if you're worried about negative press, honestly the best thing you can do is stop posting. If you hadn't launched a personal attack above he'd just have been another person through deletion review with a non-notable article. In a week's time I would not even have remembered his name.
Neonchameleon (
talk)
00:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Endorse speedy deletion per Staszek Lem's careful explanations. This is unsalvageable promotion. The Fox News appearances might provide an hint of the substantial coverage in independent
reliable sources that is required by Wikipedia's
general notability guideline, but nothing else that's been presented comes close. I also did some searching to see if I could find any other substantive independent coverage of "National Motivation and Inspiration Day" or the "American Motivation Awards"; nothing turned up. Since this lengthy discussion has not turned up anything, and the IP editor(s) has failed to grasp the problem (see
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) and has turned to namecalling, I suggest that it may be time to close this review. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Arxiloxos. Thank you for your note. This is quite frustrating.
According to the definition of "noteworthy" and "reliable sources," we have met the threshold of that several times and have provided links. (above)
He has appeared on Fox News 3 times and on ABC twice and Cablevision, as well as numerous radio interviews.
His name is specifically mentioned in the Congressional Record for the creation of H. Res 308, which was also passed by NYS Resolution and Suffolk County NY. 3 separate levels of government. How is that not noteworthy. These are judgement calls being made that are not "objective."
His books and audiobooks are on sale at Amazon, iTunes, Barnes&Noble and dozens of other online audio book sites. These are international sites that he has no control over.
The reason I am continuing this discussion is based on the feedback that has been given and we are now fearful that one of these bloggers / contributors will actually write something negative or nasty about Mr. McCrudden, which he doesn't deserve. We didn't resort to "name calling." There were derogatory and negative comments made about Mr. McCrudden and his work.
He has quotes and testimonials from some of the leading speakers in the world that say positive things about him and his work. He has videos of Zig Ziglar and Dr. Stephen Covey, who were two of the biggest names in the "motivation industry" followed literally by millions acknowledging him, as well as The Tuskegee Airmen and others acknowledging him and The American Motivation Awards, which were trivialize.
We feel shocked and "sideswiped," by the negativity in this correspondence. Who are these people to trivialize or minimize others accomplishments? If they haven't accomplished any of these things, how do they sit in judgement like it was no accomplishment at all? That's not very objective?
Just very disappointed by this entire experience. Just very unprofessional.
