Jessica Yee ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

While I generally concur with the deletion rationale for this page, neither the first AfD (closed no consensus), nor the second show consensus that the article subject is 'low notability'. The majority of commenters on both the first and the second AfD voiced their support for keeping the page. In light of that, closing this AfD early as delete is inappropriate. I suggest it be relisted to get more input, to see if consensus exists for considering Jessica to meet the threshold for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE.

If the AfD had been allowed to run for its full duration I could see this action as appropriate. Instead it was closed after only 5 hours. I propose reopening this AfD and allowing it to run for its full duration. That MastCell closed the AfD with the comment "I expect this decision to be controversial and I expect that it will be submitted to deletion review", itself shows that this is clearly not an obvious case where the AfD can be closed early. Prodego ^talk 22:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Prodego ^talk 22:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply

• Note from closing admin: I closed the AfD early because of credible assertions that the article subject was suffering real-life harassment due to the article. In those circumstances, I saw the possibility of real harm in a protracted 5-day AfD. Rather than repeat my deletion rationale, I'll simply point to my statement at the AfD. MastCell  ^Talk 22:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply

The article has existed for over a year, and is properly sourced (so all the information in it is available elsewhere). Giving a week to allow editors to review the deletion request hardly seems unreasonable. Prodego ^talk 22:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn This was essentially a speedy delete where no speedy criteria applied. The closing admin cited WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE which states that "where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete". Consensus (or lack thereof) was not allowed to form. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply

• There is probably no policy precedent for this, but what I'd like to see here is for this article to stay deleted for six months or a year, and then it can be restored. That's enough time for threats to dissipate and passions to cool, and we can make a sober decision on the merits of the article with no threat of consequences to the subject of the article. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply

• Suggestion What if the article is restored to somebody's user-space with no-index turned on? That should allow the discussion to conclude normally without any immediate WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE concerns. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion because the closing rationale - primarily IAR based on subject request for deletion and low value to the encyclopedia - was well-justified. -- Scray ( talk) 00:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per Scray.-- ukexpat ( talk) 00:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion article was apparently causing the subject unreasonable real-world grief. Whatever benefit this low-notability article might have had for Wikipedia is certainly not worth causing real harm to a living person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. We are all better for losing this article with as little fuss as possible. Thincat ( talk) 07:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Exactly what IAR was built for. Not to mention common sense. Black Kite ( talk) 12:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Disclosure: I handled the OTRS ticket that precipitated this, but I did not !vote in the AFD. I believe this was the right thing to do, a perfect example of the spirit of IAR. If we screwed up somehow, I'm sure someone will let us know. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 16:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• I think a larger discussion may well be merited. In particular I'd like to see if she'd be interested in having the article restored with keeping it protected in some way. She is clearly above the bar for notability and I don't think her bio is of low value at all. But endorse for now, a fine and good use of IAR. Hopefully we'll find a way to bring it back that she's okay with. Hobit ( talk) 16:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I sympathise with what seems like a good-faith effort on the part of the nominator, but I agree this is exactly what WP:IAR is designed to facilitate. Stalwart 111 05:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• I differ from this chorus of endorsements for the following seven reasons:- (1) DRV's main job is to see the process is correctly followed and a SNOW close is a decision to disregard the process; (2) There are good reasons why we have a process; (3) Snow closes of controversial debates don't bring the drama to an end----they just bring the drama to DRV; (4) Despite Wikipedia's increasingly deletionist approach, "BLP" is not yet the Magic Article Deletion Word; (5) Dealing with persistent vandalism by deleting articles is utterly retarded, because it rewards the vandals; and (6) Article subjects don't get to pick and choose whether they have an article for the same reason they don't get to pick and choose what their article says.

  I will list ground (7) separately because it's not a procedural objection and may receive less weight. Because the article's been deleted by one of our anointed few and not restored for DRV purposes, I have no opportunity to give this specific case the scrutiny it needs, so I default to "overturn".— S Marshall T/ C 08:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply

On (5), I was under the impression the issue was off-WP harassment, not on-WP vandalism, yeah? Stalwart 111 10:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply

What the close that we're reviewing says is:- the very real possibility that our article is precipitating or enabling real-life harassment or harm. In other words, it's about the risk of on-WP vandalism leading to off-WP harassment, yeah?

My point is that we have better tools for dealing with on-WP vandalism than the "delete" tool, and if we do start dealing with on-WP vandalism by deleting articles then we need to take a long hard look at the behaviour that we're incentivising. If I started putting vandalism about Jessica Yee into another article that I didn't like, would you want that other article deleted too?— S Marshall T/ C 11:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply

• Okay, yeah, fair enough. I was also reading the running commentary in the AFD about her being the subject of threats of violence. But I get where you're at. Stalwart 111 08:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply

First of all, I initially leaned toward your view. I suspect my personal knowledge of issues related to people who do what she does often go through had something to do with it. Further, her article is cached at Google, so that's where I looked. Lastly, I think in the long term we can and should come up with a better solution for this article. But keeping it there creates a perception on her part that she is still at risk, that's not acceptable when things are so fresh. I would like to revisit this at some point, ideally with her permission. The work she does and the awards she's won are important and should be documented here. I agree full protection would be quite enough to keep the issue at bay. But it's not reasonable for her to know/accept that at this point IMO. Hobit ( talk) 12:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse So basically the nominator of this review agrees with the closure but just for procedure's sake this review? Good closure from deleting admin. Garion96 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, while I appreciate where User:S Marshall is coming from, having reviewed the OTRS entry, I'm quite happy that immediate deletion of the article was the appropriate course of action. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 08:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC). reply
• Endorse and move on - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and although it's not censored, we shouldn't be causing any real-life harm with the stuff we write about here. When threats cool down and the subject becomes clearly notable, recreate. Michaelzeng7 ( talk) 19:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply