Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2014 March 21
2014 March 23 >

22 March 2014

  • Lyndsey Turner (stage director) – Keep deleted. There seems to be general agreement between users with access to the ticket and those without access to the ticket that this is the right thing to do in this case and at this time. As I am closing this discussion, I will not contribute my own opinion on if I think the article should be kept or deleted, but having OTRS access I will confirm that the ticket does not seem to be factually misrepresented in this discussion. Please note that this does not preclude future examinations of the issue. Unless WP:OFFICE gets involved, substantive new drafts in userspace (particularly concerning potential later increases in notability of the subject) by established editors may be reconsidered by DRV regardless of any developments on the legal issues front. – IronGargoyle ( talk) 01:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lyndsey Turner (stage director) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)
(Also Lyndsey Turner ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore) -- Jreferee ( talk) 12:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)) reply

I am requesting this page to be unprotected and reinstated. Ms Turner is a notable theatrical director in the UK. She won the best director award at the 2014 Critics' Circle Theatre Awards, which is one of the top awards in the industry alongside the Olivier and the Evening Standard Awards. Link for her award is here: [1]. She is the only award-winning director in the last 30 years who's been denied her own page. I strongly believe that she is notable and deserving of reinstatement. Thanks. Peripatetic ( talk) 22:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC) reply

The article has been re-created several times using multiple sockpuppets by an abusive obsessed individual. Now is a great time not to do this. There are strong reasons for not having an article at this time. It is worrying that this particular round of requests was catalysed by yet another sockpuppet recreating the article at yet another title. Guy ( Help!) 23:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I confess I am totally puzzled by this reply. I thought the only rationale behind the existence of an article was the subject's notability. This has been conclusively shown in Ms Turner's case. I am obviously not spending enough time in the right parts of Wikipedia. Oh well. Peripatetic ( talk) 09:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
There may be strong reasons for not having an article and there may be strong reasons for not announcing what these reasons are. Being created under different titles seems no sort of reason at all. Could an admin who knows nothing about this consult Guy, look at the article's (articles') history and see what might best be done? Is a (protected?) draft of some sort a possibility? Thincat ( talk) 10:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
If there is a serious problem, surely this, fully protected, with edit requests allowed on the talk page, would deal with the situation. No? Thincat ( talk) 10:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I took a look through the history. The key item is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lyndsey_Turner_(2nd_nomination) (which has since been administratively blanked), where it says, The result was Delete OTRS ticket:2014012210016753 applies. [...] There are legal issues. I think we need to just leave it at that. If the OTRS folks stepped in with a deletion and history blanking, there's a good reason. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted As an uninvolved admin and (lately largely inactive) OTRS agent, I have reviewed the article history and OTRS ticket, and believe that Guy's recommendations are correct. Given that I'm precluded from explaining why I beleive this, I don't expect my opinion to carry much weight, but perhaps it is of at least some value. -- j⚛e decker talk 16:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Thank you, both. I accept that. If at all possible a freshly-created protected superstub would be far preferable to a red link. Any gap will become increasingly glaring over the next few months and will in itself attract attention. Thincat ( talk) 17:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I am no longer on OTRS so can't read the correspondence but from reading the current AN discussion and looking through the article history we appear to have a gap in our BLP policy concerning what to do about living people feeling harassed by the multiple creation of a wikipedia article as part of a sustained on-line campaign by an obsessed fan. Given the maxim that we should do no harm I personally feel that we can live without this article. Alternatively, the only way to manage this and have an article would be to indefinitely protect a super stub but that is by far my second choice as without seeing the OTRS records we have no way to assess the impact of this discussion on a real person. I don't see any compelling argument that we shouldn't trust the judgement of those admins who have reviewed the full information on OTRS. Note that this review should be courtesy blanked once completed Spartaz Humbug! 20:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted per Joe Decker. I agree with Spartaz's comments in their entirety, and in particular I don't see any compelling argument that we shouldn't trust the judgement of those admins who have reviewed the full information on OTRS. 28bytes ( talk) 20:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
From the subject, with permission:
Whilst I understand and support completely the project of Wikipedia, I am currently in the middle of an attempt to stem a small but significant tide of harassment which has recently become a police matter. As the case is still active, I feel that it would be damaging to the protocol of the investigation to allow a page to be created, knowing that it might well become a focus for further intimidation. I do hope you can understand my concern in this matter.
Please do the right thing, folks. I have been a victim myself, it is unpleasant (see http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/cloudy/2011/11/29/my-day-in-court/). You have no idea how unpleasant this can be. I urge people to wait until the above situation is resolved. Guy ( Help!) 23:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted for the reasons outlined above. This seems to be one of those cases where WP:IAR is absolutely the right way to go. Is she notable? Yes. Would we ordinarily have an article? Yes. Should we right now? No. That should take nothing away from the nominator, Peripatetic, who's "notable and deserving of reinstatement" argument seems entirely good-faith. The unfortunate part is that we could probably trust an editor like that to create quite a good article to be published at a protected title by an equally good-faith admin. Maybe in the future that's exactly what we should consider. But for now, we should leave this alone. Stalwart 111 07:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion because of a legitimate subject request. Even if some sort of protected entity is viable we do not need to have anything in the short term if it might cause distress. (I commented a few times above). Thincat ( talk) 08:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted per Guy's extract of the conversation with the subject. Hopefully the harassment will come to an end, and when it does it may be appropriate to make an article. Not yet though. Would also have no objection to DGG's redirect suggestion unless anyone can see why that would be a bad idea. Olaf Davis ( talk) 11:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Close without result. We can't give this any meaningful scrutiny in the circumstances. We shouldn't pretend that we've considered the matter at all. We haven't: OTRS people have looked at it and said, "Yeah, this is the right choice", and we've simply accepted that. "Endorse" or "Keep deleted" are not the right words to use, because these words imply that DRV has reached a conclusion. Please would the closer say something along the lines of "There is a consensus that OTRS trumps the deletion review process in this case."— S Marshall T/ C 12:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think OTRS can trump a local consensus - which is why we have OFFICE actions - so in this case I'd suggest that the close simply said that in this case the consensus was to trust the admins who had the full facts. Spartaz Humbug! 14:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted per 28bytes and Guy. I agree with Spartaz' suggestion just above as to what the close should say. JohnCD ( talk) 15:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I'd prefer the protected stub as I can't see how that could be harmful (until we unprotect it I suppose), but I'll defer to the folks with OTRS access under the assumption that there is some way that protection is insufficient. Does this discussion remind anyone else of the FISA court? Hobit ( talk) 21:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I think the issue there would be the associated unprotected talk page which could still be used as a vehicle for harassment. Stalwart 111 21:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
If we aren't already, we can tag the talk page to be no-index so that no one should be able to find the attacks unless they are looking for them. I think that problem is solvable. Again, there may be something else going on here, thus I defer to the folks with OTRS access. Hobit ( talk) 21:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
It's my understanding that the presence of the {{ BLP}} template, either directly or indirectly via {{ WPBiography}} (with living=yes) or {{ WPBannerShell}} (with BLP=yes) makes the page "noindex." davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 22:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • This appears to be a bit of a disaster for the Pedia. We cannot apparently prevent our space being used for harassment, and our only choice is censor an entire in-scope article. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 23:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Put in a fully-protected stub/start page at Lyndsey Turner unless there are compelling OTRS/Legal reasons to leave a red-link. Why? There was insufficient discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Lyndsey Turner (2nd nomination) and WP:Articles for deletion/Lyndsey Turner (director) to properly qualify as an AFD - the former was closed as "delete OTRS ticket" after less than 24 hours, and the latter was closed as "speedy delete." The first AFD, WP:Articles for deletion/Lyndsey Turner, passed as a clear "keep" a few weeks earler. Therefore, WP:G4 is inappropriate, WP:G5 only applies to the versions prior to 22 January 2014 if there are no salvagable edits. Since it's been decided at the first AFD that the person is notable, the only reason to not have an article about this person at all are legal issues or if the person is later found to be not notable after all. Barring a WMF-imposed WP:LEGAL action, this review should be looking at the OTRS ticket to decide whether to have an article or not. I can't imagine anything in an OTRS ticket that would prevent a short stub or start-class page about this person from being in Wikipedia, but I'll admit that imagination may be eclipsed by reality. In any case, I highly recommend that if an article is re-created, it should be minimal, containing only enough information to clearly demonstrate that WP:Notability exists, along with non-controversial things like a (well-cited) date-of-birth and a broad overview of the person's career, and that it be fully-protected until the sockpuppet gets bored. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion After reading the ticket, in case someone needs another voice to the chorus of "yeah, this is bad". § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I looked over some of the prior versions of the article and did not find the compelling reason to keep the article deleted. I think we could maintain an article that meets BIO, NPOV, etc. That being said, we have several editors who read the OTRS ticket and drew the same conclusion (keep delete). That seems to be the strongest argument and my view likely is not as strong since I do not have access to the OTRS ticket information. In short, I defer the views of those who have reviewed the OTRS ticket. Guy or whoever is going to monitor this topic, if the time comes where the subject no longer feels that it would be damaging to the protocol of the investigation to allow a page to be created, please let me know and I would be happy to write the biography article. -- Jreferee ( talk) 12:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Customs4U ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The page was speedily deleted under G11 and A7 criteria. The topic has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources including mainstream media [2] which bears at least minimum notability to discuss in Afd rather than a CSD. For the G11 criteria, this can be checked with {{ advert}} and re-written as G11 states If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. I have already contacted the closing admin [3] who advised me DRV [4]. Thank you Talpatra ( talk) 07:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Overturn - the writing style isn't particularly spamming (a little copyediting may be needed, but not a fundamental rewrite), and the Huffington Post reference (for example) makes the A7 claim laughable on it's face. Wily D 13:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC) reply
You did not answer the question. What is your connection with the subject? Guy ( Help!) 23:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry as I though this is personal but if the answer is needed for the review then I like porn and I found Customs4U video services noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia so other can read about it. Thanks. Talpatra ( talk) 07:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The problem with this position is that even if someone else wanted to create an article on the subject, forcing them to duplicate the work that already went into writing the article just because you believe Talpatra may weigh the same as a duck is a waste of everyone's time and effort. Why would I, or anyone else, want to write an article from scratch when one already exists? Wily D 09:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • But the G11 itself prefers cleanup than deletion for notable organizations.-- Talpatra ( talk) 03:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • That's a misreading of the criterion. "If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view" is the operative clause, emphasis mine. The first sentence really clarifies this, G11 only applies when the entire text would need to be more or less completely rewritten. In that case, deleting the article does little harm, since a neutral article will have to be written from scratch in any case. It is my view that that is the case here. -- j⚛e decker talk 07:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
If you can point out the spammy parts this would help me in future to edit Wikipedia. Thanks. Talpatra ( talk) 07:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I think G11 deletion wasn't out-of-line (though I'd have declined it as fixable), but I'd prefer we userfy on request--it just isn't that hard to fix it up. At the same time, I'm getting tired of reading porn articles at DRV. A) I just don't want to and B) I feel like porn subjects are being judged with a different standard and thus they are showing up here too often. Hobit ( talk) 18:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • But confused if you mean we are deleting too many or that too many obviously unsuitable articles are being brought up here? I actually feel that after the monumental effort to reform PORNBIO that far fewer porn bios are making their way here - not doubt because our pro-porn editors know that they get short shrift if they don't have the sources to pass GNG. Happy to continue this on my or your talk if you feel this question is too meta for DRV Spartaz Humbug! 18:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
      • I think here is fine--I started it after all. Feel free to move to talk if you feel it's better there.
My sense is that porn-related topics are getting a number of "delete" !votes because they are porn-related and folks feel there is a harm associated with having them that might not apply to other people. That's a reasonable opinion to hold, but one I don't share and one that really isn't policy-based. I could easily be misreading people on this, but we do have two porn-related articles at DRV that meet the GNG but are being deleted for other reasons, both of which I think are a stretch (but I'm an inclusionist, so that shouldn't be too shocking I guess). On the other hand, I'm quite pleased that folks have stopped bringing articles that clearly fail the GNG to DRV on the basis of a PORNBIO. Hobit ( talk) 21:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_March_22&oldid=1082508315"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2014 March 21
2014 March 23 >

22 March 2014

  • Lyndsey Turner (stage director) – Keep deleted. There seems to be general agreement between users with access to the ticket and those without access to the ticket that this is the right thing to do in this case and at this time. As I am closing this discussion, I will not contribute my own opinion on if I think the article should be kept or deleted, but having OTRS access I will confirm that the ticket does not seem to be factually misrepresented in this discussion. Please note that this does not preclude future examinations of the issue. Unless WP:OFFICE gets involved, substantive new drafts in userspace (particularly concerning potential later increases in notability of the subject) by established editors may be reconsidered by DRV regardless of any developments on the legal issues front. – IronGargoyle ( talk) 01:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lyndsey Turner (stage director) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)
(Also Lyndsey Turner ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore) -- Jreferee ( talk) 12:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)) reply

I am requesting this page to be unprotected and reinstated. Ms Turner is a notable theatrical director in the UK. She won the best director award at the 2014 Critics' Circle Theatre Awards, which is one of the top awards in the industry alongside the Olivier and the Evening Standard Awards. Link for her award is here: [1]. She is the only award-winning director in the last 30 years who's been denied her own page. I strongly believe that she is notable and deserving of reinstatement. Thanks. Peripatetic ( talk) 22:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC) reply

The article has been re-created several times using multiple sockpuppets by an abusive obsessed individual. Now is a great time not to do this. There are strong reasons for not having an article at this time. It is worrying that this particular round of requests was catalysed by yet another sockpuppet recreating the article at yet another title. Guy ( Help!) 23:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I confess I am totally puzzled by this reply. I thought the only rationale behind the existence of an article was the subject's notability. This has been conclusively shown in Ms Turner's case. I am obviously not spending enough time in the right parts of Wikipedia. Oh well. Peripatetic ( talk) 09:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
There may be strong reasons for not having an article and there may be strong reasons for not announcing what these reasons are. Being created under different titles seems no sort of reason at all. Could an admin who knows nothing about this consult Guy, look at the article's (articles') history and see what might best be done? Is a (protected?) draft of some sort a possibility? Thincat ( talk) 10:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
If there is a serious problem, surely this, fully protected, with edit requests allowed on the talk page, would deal with the situation. No? Thincat ( talk) 10:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I took a look through the history. The key item is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lyndsey_Turner_(2nd_nomination) (which has since been administratively blanked), where it says, The result was Delete OTRS ticket:2014012210016753 applies. [...] There are legal issues. I think we need to just leave it at that. If the OTRS folks stepped in with a deletion and history blanking, there's a good reason. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted As an uninvolved admin and (lately largely inactive) OTRS agent, I have reviewed the article history and OTRS ticket, and believe that Guy's recommendations are correct. Given that I'm precluded from explaining why I beleive this, I don't expect my opinion to carry much weight, but perhaps it is of at least some value. -- j⚛e decker talk 16:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Thank you, both. I accept that. If at all possible a freshly-created protected superstub would be far preferable to a red link. Any gap will become increasingly glaring over the next few months and will in itself attract attention. Thincat ( talk) 17:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I am no longer on OTRS so can't read the correspondence but from reading the current AN discussion and looking through the article history we appear to have a gap in our BLP policy concerning what to do about living people feeling harassed by the multiple creation of a wikipedia article as part of a sustained on-line campaign by an obsessed fan. Given the maxim that we should do no harm I personally feel that we can live without this article. Alternatively, the only way to manage this and have an article would be to indefinitely protect a super stub but that is by far my second choice as without seeing the OTRS records we have no way to assess the impact of this discussion on a real person. I don't see any compelling argument that we shouldn't trust the judgement of those admins who have reviewed the full information on OTRS. Note that this review should be courtesy blanked once completed Spartaz Humbug! 20:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted per Joe Decker. I agree with Spartaz's comments in their entirety, and in particular I don't see any compelling argument that we shouldn't trust the judgement of those admins who have reviewed the full information on OTRS. 28bytes ( talk) 20:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
From the subject, with permission:
Whilst I understand and support completely the project of Wikipedia, I am currently in the middle of an attempt to stem a small but significant tide of harassment which has recently become a police matter. As the case is still active, I feel that it would be damaging to the protocol of the investigation to allow a page to be created, knowing that it might well become a focus for further intimidation. I do hope you can understand my concern in this matter.
Please do the right thing, folks. I have been a victim myself, it is unpleasant (see http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/cloudy/2011/11/29/my-day-in-court/). You have no idea how unpleasant this can be. I urge people to wait until the above situation is resolved. Guy ( Help!) 23:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted for the reasons outlined above. This seems to be one of those cases where WP:IAR is absolutely the right way to go. Is she notable? Yes. Would we ordinarily have an article? Yes. Should we right now? No. That should take nothing away from the nominator, Peripatetic, who's "notable and deserving of reinstatement" argument seems entirely good-faith. The unfortunate part is that we could probably trust an editor like that to create quite a good article to be published at a protected title by an equally good-faith admin. Maybe in the future that's exactly what we should consider. But for now, we should leave this alone. Stalwart 111 07:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion because of a legitimate subject request. Even if some sort of protected entity is viable we do not need to have anything in the short term if it might cause distress. (I commented a few times above). Thincat ( talk) 08:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted per Guy's extract of the conversation with the subject. Hopefully the harassment will come to an end, and when it does it may be appropriate to make an article. Not yet though. Would also have no objection to DGG's redirect suggestion unless anyone can see why that would be a bad idea. Olaf Davis ( talk) 11:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Close without result. We can't give this any meaningful scrutiny in the circumstances. We shouldn't pretend that we've considered the matter at all. We haven't: OTRS people have looked at it and said, "Yeah, this is the right choice", and we've simply accepted that. "Endorse" or "Keep deleted" are not the right words to use, because these words imply that DRV has reached a conclusion. Please would the closer say something along the lines of "There is a consensus that OTRS trumps the deletion review process in this case."— S Marshall T/ C 12:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think OTRS can trump a local consensus - which is why we have OFFICE actions - so in this case I'd suggest that the close simply said that in this case the consensus was to trust the admins who had the full facts. Spartaz Humbug! 14:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted per 28bytes and Guy. I agree with Spartaz' suggestion just above as to what the close should say. JohnCD ( talk) 15:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I'd prefer the protected stub as I can't see how that could be harmful (until we unprotect it I suppose), but I'll defer to the folks with OTRS access under the assumption that there is some way that protection is insufficient. Does this discussion remind anyone else of the FISA court? Hobit ( talk) 21:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I think the issue there would be the associated unprotected talk page which could still be used as a vehicle for harassment. Stalwart 111 21:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
If we aren't already, we can tag the talk page to be no-index so that no one should be able to find the attacks unless they are looking for them. I think that problem is solvable. Again, there may be something else going on here, thus I defer to the folks with OTRS access. Hobit ( talk) 21:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
It's my understanding that the presence of the {{ BLP}} template, either directly or indirectly via {{ WPBiography}} (with living=yes) or {{ WPBannerShell}} (with BLP=yes) makes the page "noindex." davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 22:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • This appears to be a bit of a disaster for the Pedia. We cannot apparently prevent our space being used for harassment, and our only choice is censor an entire in-scope article. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 23:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Put in a fully-protected stub/start page at Lyndsey Turner unless there are compelling OTRS/Legal reasons to leave a red-link. Why? There was insufficient discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Lyndsey Turner (2nd nomination) and WP:Articles for deletion/Lyndsey Turner (director) to properly qualify as an AFD - the former was closed as "delete OTRS ticket" after less than 24 hours, and the latter was closed as "speedy delete." The first AFD, WP:Articles for deletion/Lyndsey Turner, passed as a clear "keep" a few weeks earler. Therefore, WP:G4 is inappropriate, WP:G5 only applies to the versions prior to 22 January 2014 if there are no salvagable edits. Since it's been decided at the first AFD that the person is notable, the only reason to not have an article about this person at all are legal issues or if the person is later found to be not notable after all. Barring a WMF-imposed WP:LEGAL action, this review should be looking at the OTRS ticket to decide whether to have an article or not. I can't imagine anything in an OTRS ticket that would prevent a short stub or start-class page about this person from being in Wikipedia, but I'll admit that imagination may be eclipsed by reality. In any case, I highly recommend that if an article is re-created, it should be minimal, containing only enough information to clearly demonstrate that WP:Notability exists, along with non-controversial things like a (well-cited) date-of-birth and a broad overview of the person's career, and that it be fully-protected until the sockpuppet gets bored. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion After reading the ticket, in case someone needs another voice to the chorus of "yeah, this is bad". § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I looked over some of the prior versions of the article and did not find the compelling reason to keep the article deleted. I think we could maintain an article that meets BIO, NPOV, etc. That being said, we have several editors who read the OTRS ticket and drew the same conclusion (keep delete). That seems to be the strongest argument and my view likely is not as strong since I do not have access to the OTRS ticket information. In short, I defer the views of those who have reviewed the OTRS ticket. Guy or whoever is going to monitor this topic, if the time comes where the subject no longer feels that it would be damaging to the protocol of the investigation to allow a page to be created, please let me know and I would be happy to write the biography article. -- Jreferee ( talk) 12:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Customs4U ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The page was speedily deleted under G11 and A7 criteria. The topic has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources including mainstream media [2] which bears at least minimum notability to discuss in Afd rather than a CSD. For the G11 criteria, this can be checked with {{ advert}} and re-written as G11 states If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. I have already contacted the closing admin [3] who advised me DRV [4]. Thank you Talpatra ( talk) 07:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Overturn - the writing style isn't particularly spamming (a little copyediting may be needed, but not a fundamental rewrite), and the Huffington Post reference (for example) makes the A7 claim laughable on it's face. Wily D 13:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC) reply
You did not answer the question. What is your connection with the subject? Guy ( Help!) 23:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry as I though this is personal but if the answer is needed for the review then I like porn and I found Customs4U video services noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia so other can read about it. Thanks. Talpatra ( talk) 07:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The problem with this position is that even if someone else wanted to create an article on the subject, forcing them to duplicate the work that already went into writing the article just because you believe Talpatra may weigh the same as a duck is a waste of everyone's time and effort. Why would I, or anyone else, want to write an article from scratch when one already exists? Wily D 09:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • But the G11 itself prefers cleanup than deletion for notable organizations.-- Talpatra ( talk) 03:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • That's a misreading of the criterion. "If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view" is the operative clause, emphasis mine. The first sentence really clarifies this, G11 only applies when the entire text would need to be more or less completely rewritten. In that case, deleting the article does little harm, since a neutral article will have to be written from scratch in any case. It is my view that that is the case here. -- j⚛e decker talk 07:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply
If you can point out the spammy parts this would help me in future to edit Wikipedia. Thanks. Talpatra ( talk) 07:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I think G11 deletion wasn't out-of-line (though I'd have declined it as fixable), but I'd prefer we userfy on request--it just isn't that hard to fix it up. At the same time, I'm getting tired of reading porn articles at DRV. A) I just don't want to and B) I feel like porn subjects are being judged with a different standard and thus they are showing up here too often. Hobit ( talk) 18:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • But confused if you mean we are deleting too many or that too many obviously unsuitable articles are being brought up here? I actually feel that after the monumental effort to reform PORNBIO that far fewer porn bios are making their way here - not doubt because our pro-porn editors know that they get short shrift if they don't have the sources to pass GNG. Happy to continue this on my or your talk if you feel this question is too meta for DRV Spartaz Humbug! 18:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
      • I think here is fine--I started it after all. Feel free to move to talk if you feel it's better there.
My sense is that porn-related topics are getting a number of "delete" !votes because they are porn-related and folks feel there is a harm associated with having them that might not apply to other people. That's a reasonable opinion to hold, but one I don't share and one that really isn't policy-based. I could easily be misreading people on this, but we do have two porn-related articles at DRV that meet the GNG but are being deleted for other reasons, both of which I think are a stretch (but I'm an inclusionist, so that shouldn't be too shocking I guess). On the other hand, I'm quite pleased that folks have stopped bringing articles that clearly fail the GNG to DRV on the basis of a PORNBIO. Hobit ( talk) 21:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_March_22&oldid=1082508315"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE