The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. On oversighting some edits, it appears there is no consensus to do so, and advice from more technically proficient people suggests oversight would not actually work in this case anyway, as the edits would be removed but the content would still be there. Orderinchaos 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Per BLP and BLP1E, this is about a minor. The AFD contains attacks on a minor by Wikipedians and anonymous editors. Major news media in turn linked to the AFD, including quotes of Wikipedians "swearing" about and directed at this minor. A total embarressment for us under BLP. At a dead minimum, I am asking under allowed process that the AFD be deleted and recreated and left indefinitely protected, if not outright deleted. This is a valid MFD. Please do not attempt to close it out of process.

As my request on ANI has gone unheeded, with people citing non-policy stories such as Damnatio memoriae, which is nonsense, as Wikipedia deletes internal history constantly with Oversight, and deletion and selection restoration of articles and pages for privacy reasons. Why is this Australian minor and child to be denied the same? Wikipedia's rule is to do no harm to living persons. Per BLP we must do this. After the MFD is done, I ask that the MFD also be blanked or deleted for obvious reasons depending on BLP vios here. Individuals unwilling to protect children under BLP have forced me to take this step, as I do not have administration myself to delete the AFD. If I did, I would have already under BLP. Lawrence Cohen 14:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Note: Due to the length of the discussion it is no longer transcluded on the MFD page. Please see the subpage for the discussion.

• It seems to me like a really bad idea to delete pages which news sites have linked to. It's not like nobody will know about him if the AfD is deleted... - Amarkov moo! 14:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Getting rid of BLP violations in a page history involving a minor is more important than what some trash tabloids may or may not think. BLP trumps everything else. Lawrence Cohen 14:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I see no substantial BLP issues in the discussion's history. If an editor calls someone a dickhead, that's a personal attack, but it is not a BLP violation. J T Price ( talk) 14:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Either way, when it's a minor, what possible benefit is there to Wikipedia, or the child, to keep it visible? Lawrence Cohen 16:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

That's not the way it works. We don't delete by default. - Koweja ( talk) 15:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• keep Deletion of this AfD violates transparency and is particularly unreasonable given that we have many major news sources that already talk about him and some have even linked to this deletion discussion [1]. If someone feels so compelled then they could blank the page. JoshuaZ ( talk) 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Fuck transparency, he's a minor, and Wikipedia has no need to keep attacks on a minor publically viewable, per BLP. We're not here to jerk off over rules, we're here to make an encyclopedia while hurting no one. Lawrence Cohen 16:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Calm down. Both you and JoshuaZ make valid points. Ichormosquito ( talk) 19:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete I agree with the rationale for deletion but see some merits in Amarkov's argument as well. It should at least be renamed given the situation regarding the charges which have emerged [2] [3] and some questions about sub judice and whether it applies to Wikipedia in this kind of case involving a minor. Deletion however is the best option in my view. Orderinchaos 15:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • comment As I've already explained at the ongoing DRV there's no issue with sub judice. Let's be explicit a) the Wikimedia servers that run Wikipedia are in Florida not Australia b) manu areas that do have sub judice rules have exceptions for cases that are highly public and in fact in practice even when such rules do not formally exist they often aren't enforced in highly public cases unless there is something particular egregious going on c) The Australian news sources don't seem to see any sub judice issue. Now, can we stop with the armchair legal arguments? JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

If the Australian sources don't, why are Age, SMH and ABC talking about him in the indefinite third person ever since? Orderinchaos 16:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep per JoshuaZ. If you are so concerned about legal issues with this article why didn't you follow process per the Badlydrawnjeff case and ask for a speedy deletion followed by DRV without undeletion? EconomicsGuy ( talk) 15:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Oversight per below. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 16:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The legal issues arose after the AFD, or for that matter even the DRV, began due to changes in the circumstances of the subject of the article. Orderinchaos 16:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Right, in that case oversight of the offending edits would be a better idea. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 16:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Oversight The offending edits. -- Hu12 ( talk) 15:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Agree with this proposal, regardless of whether outcome is Keep or Delete. Orderinchaos 16:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Abstain There is no precedence for this and the impending decision should not be left up to an XfD process. I read the AN/I thread, and if there is really no support there (which essentially was an MfD, so this is essentially the 2nd nomination), how can a more general forum argue any differently? It appears policy would approve of the current action: blanking and protecting. There are too many non-policy reasons involved in the nomination, which would indicate more of a bureaucratic involvement, IMO. -- 12 Noon  ^2¢ 15:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

bureaucratic? Utter nonsense. If doing the right thing takes a simple click a button, or adding 73 layers of bureaucratic requirements, it doesn't matter: we do the right thing. What bureaucratic involvement does it take to copy the contents of a templated/blanked page to your clipboard, delete the page, click "edit", hit paste, add a one line note that it was blanked for privacy and BLP, and then hit the "protect" button again? Lawrence Cohen 16:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Question — I have just read the final version of the deletion debate (the closed version, I mean), and I don't see anything in it which violates talk-page BLP standards. Is the concern with other edits in the history which were deleted under BLP? Doops | talk 16:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes. Even if some are just "personal attacks", they're despicable personal attacks by Wikipedians or anons on a minor, making it even worse. Lawrence Cohen 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, then delete the most egregious BLP violations from the history, but keep the final record of the deletion debate. Rewriting history should only be done with extreme sparingness and delicacy; an entirely missing AfD page would very weird -- openness is important. Doops | talk 17:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Oversight the BLP vios, Keep the AfD blanked at a minimum. Reading over the AN/I thread, it's clear that at this juncture keeping anything in the history (even if the AfD was deleted and then restored to remove the offending edits) is going to be about as desirable to Wikipedia as a bed of nails is desirable to a hemophiliac. I do not care if the AfD's deleted, but the edits associated with it that are BLP violations must be oversighted in any case, Keep or Delete. - Jéské ^{( Blah v^_^v)} 16:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep and don't oversight: oversight is for non public personal information, or possibly libellous stuff. I honestly don't see that here. It's been blanked so it won't show up on Google, so I don't see a problem. Majorly ( talk) 17:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep after blanking; no oversight needed. per Majorly (which proves we can agree on something!) There's nothing pressing to oversight -- Wikipedia benefits from the preservation of its records, while courtesy blanking prevents any collateral damage from the generation of additional publicity. Folks specifically looking for this should be able to see how WP has dealt with it, but WP shouldn't contribute to the proliferation of this name. This MfD should also be blanked after its finished. Xoloz ( talk) 18:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep I was not aware that archived AfD pages could be deleted, and I don't think it's right, since it removes an important piece of history and transparency. While I agree with Lawrence Cohen that the swearing and insults on that page were not necessary, this can be remedied by editing out those offending words. I also question why Cohen himself feels the need to exhibit unnecessary profanity himself on this page in response to issues brought up by othes. Doing this lowers his own credibility. Nightscream ( talk) 17:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

My credibility is irrelevant, and I'd cheefully burn through any I've ever gained here on BLP issues, since doing the right thing is to do no harm to BLPs, especially minors. Lawrence Cohen 17:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep, but oversight the offending edits so that the discussion is based on policies and guidelines only and not people's personal views on the incident - and this should stay courtesy blanked permanently.-- h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep and oversight the problem edits. The entire AFD should not be deleted, as it is part of our records, and the non-offending material should be retained. The other stuff should go, if it presents an ethical or moral problem. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 18:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment as well. Editors in discussion here may wish to note that the subject of the article (which we are debating the deletion of the AfD discussion of) is currently mentioned in another article which is up for AfD - Myspace invites and out of control parties. Should we also delete this immediately per WP:BLP? There was a precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachael Bell but there was no WP:BLP concern raised there, although the article was nominated for deletion several months after the actual event and the AfD was definitely not linked from a high-traffic site or anything like that.- h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Xoloz - deletion is overkill and we've fulfilled our BLP obligations with the courtesy blanking. I have no problem with indefinite protection however. Hut 8.5 19:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep and preserve blanking, per Xoloz and Majorly. I looked at the pre-blanked version and couldn't see any BLP violations. (Personal attacks against someone, contrary to popular belief, are not BLP violations, nor are they defamatory in law. They are just opinions. Both the law of defamation and the Wikipedia BLP policy are intended to protect people against potentially damaging and false allegations of fact, e.g. "X rapes children" or "X is dishonest". They are not intended to prevent anyone insulting anyone else.) However, I also agree completely with the nom that keeping the AfD visible will not benefit the encyclopedia, and may harm Mr Delaney; thus I support the current policy of keeping the page blanked. Walton ^One 19:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note on Oversight - Please don't !vote "oversight" as your requested outcome. Bluntly, the entire history of the AfD is not going to be destroyed. Suggest deletion and request that the closing admin give specific revisions to the oversight mail-list so those with oversight permission may make a determination. If you have a specific edit that requires oversight, visit WP:RFO and request that edit be stricken. Thanks. ~Kylu ( u| t) 19:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Huh? I don't get it. Why would somebody who is only in favor of selected oversight vote delete? Delete means delete; you're not going to get anybody to type that word who doesn't want to see the page vanish. Doops | talk 02:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep: It's been courtesy blanked, which is all that needed to be done. Going further is starting to get out of hand. No one's going to see the problems unless they look really hard. Keep it courtesy blanked, but leave the history intact. Wizardman 19:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment. If the AfD is kept with oversighting the problematic edits, it may be useful to refer to in the future because the news reports (maybe it's just media hype, but you don't know) suggest that there is at least a chance he may become genuinely notable in the future.-- h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep and Speedy close it is obvious that this is not going to end delete, and i can't see a legit reson to do this. The Placebo Effect ( talk) 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • comment We don't lose anything by having the full discussion. A speedy close here would be as much a short-circuit of consensus building at the initial AfD's speedy close was. Although it is unlikely that anything else will change the outcome, we don't lose anything by leaving this open. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is stretching BLP further than I think we ought to. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 21:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep and agree with the speedy close. Process for process sake when consensus seems reasonably clear is only dragging out discussion on an obviously sensitive matter involving minors and the law. I don't see a lot wrong with the AfD, other than some intemperate comments and actually think it is of some benefit for the project as a precedent for dealing with BLP and minors. My courtesy blanking was prompted by the link to the page from news.com.au out of concern for the child's privacy. There was no need for us to add to the moral panic surrounding his situation. However, in a months time it will all die down and the AfD will be mostly forgotten. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 21:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment Further to the speedy close we have an AfD, a DRV, discussion at AN/I and now this, a process that the nominator conceded was POINTy. I think enough is enough. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 22:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep; don't oversight I strongly agree with BLP - we must recognized that Wikipedia can affect real people's lives. An article can serious effect a person's life. A blanked deletion debate cannot. The average person can't find it; and anyone who does, understand that the opinions expressed are not authoritative in the least. Jon513 ( talk) 21:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

  Joke If someone says something offensive here will there be a discussion about deleting this? Jon513 ( talk) 23:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment It may be a joke, but it raises a legitimate point. This situation is becoming recursive. Do we delete this discussion as well? Where does it stop? -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 00:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• When there are no more BLP violations is when we stop. Please see Viridae's latest post. This is now a child accused of crimes, whose name cannot be legally released. We should delete the AFD and the MFD. Lawrence Cohen 00:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep Reubot ( talk) 23:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• (comment removed - BLP concerns) -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 02:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• If there was any doubt that BLP needed to be applied incredibly tightly here, there is no longer any doubt whatsoever. Lawrence Cohen 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Response to Mattin's deletion of Viridae's comment-- the media is reporting that the "now" unnamed child is charged. Keeping these pages makes a mockery of BLP. Lawrence Cohen 02:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Only related to the charges I would think, non charge related articles can still use the name judging from http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23066018-5006301,00.html (Which was posted at 10:30 Jan 17, after the charges has been laid.) Reubot ( talk) 01:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

YOu seem to be right: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/charges-laid-over-party-melee/2008/01/16/1200419885274.html Though the age doesnt make it clear wether it was him charged, other sources did seem to. Viridae ^Talk 01:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep - nothing of BLP level whatsever, I cannot see how it might hurt the kid. BLP should not be a magical word trumping the common sense. On the other hand, see no big problems if all the revisions of the AFD but last are deleted Alex Bakharev ( talk) 01:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • That is highly GFDL non-compliant a solution and doesn't solve anything. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    • If the final text does not use the previous material there is no GFDL problems. If it does we can list the contributors. It solves the problem of not having a page to refer then the article will be resurrected and on the other hand censors the page from whatever negative information on the kid the history might have. IMHO there is no harm in the history of the AFD page as it is now but if somebody is paranoid it may be a solution Alex Bakharev ( talk) 03:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The guy Corey is world news. You can't just censor world news. So he's a minor. Big deal. Are you going to delete every wik article that might contain information about a minor? That the minor may or may not want to see published? It's already been published anyway, in hundreds of mainstream media stories. Put the article up and stop being so absurdly PRECIOUS.-- 121.217.107.69 ( talk) 04:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• For the record Searching "Corey Delaney" - exact phrase - on Google now pulls up over 21,000 hits. And wik wants to say nothing? -- 121.217.107.69 ( talk) 04:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Wiki might want to say nothing. The event is not particular notable. But having 21K hits, none of each being to the AFD history, makes anybody wonder what is the advantage of removing the AFD page? Do we really expect that an idiot would look for the info on the boy from a history of an obscure AFD page? Do we want to delete articles Google, Yahoo, etc. that have links to the search sites that provide much more convenient access to the information we want to censor? Alex Bakharev ( talk) 04:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Re: 121.217's comments above... 21,000 people just jumped off a bridge... Will you jump too? Just cuz it can be proven to exist does not mean that it makes the basis of an encyclopedia article. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
      • It is a sociologically and culturally notable phenomenon. The Times has just published on the story. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3198418.ece Wik is on the slippery slope of CENSORSHIP because of supercilious attitudes among some admins.-- 121.217.107.69 ( talk) 04:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Wikipedia responsibly self-censors on a number of issues to do with children already without chicken-little running around screaming "the sky is falling". -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 05:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
          • Oh yeah, good idea, shoot the messenger. Very enlightened. Why cannot a Wik article simply record the fact that one Corey Delaney received international media attention for organized a party via Myspace that attracted 500 people? And then simply cite several of the major media stories? Why this information blackhole on Wik only? How come the professional editors at the major news outlets of the world are not squeamish about this story like the amateur editors at Wik? I call on other Admins to reverse this bad policy. Show the Corey Delaney article!-- 121.217.107.69 ( talk) 05:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
            • • Last try. See WP:BLP1E. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
              • Corey is now front page on SMH. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/day-of-the-dork-the-making-of-corey/2008/01/17/1200419957239.html. This guy's instant worldwide fame must really irritate all you unknown-but-trying-so-hard people.-- 121.217.107.69 ( talk) 06:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
                • • Here we are not to discuss if we want to undelete the original Corey_Delaney article, we are to decide if we want to keep the AFD item. It is highly unlikely anybody will use the AFD for the information about Corey, but need it for our own internal bookkeeping. If you want to review the original deletion please start a WP:DRV Alex Bakharev ( talk) 06:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
                    • It's already at DRV - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 15. Hut 8.5 07:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Per all of the above. We don't delete AfD discussions, and I don't see a reason to start now. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 05:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep with removal of the personal attacks.. I seem to recall someone in the AfD calling him a dickhead and that should have been removed then and there. ALLSTAR echo 06:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The discussion has already been courtesy-blanked, which should be enough. While it is true that WP:BLP states that it applies to "any Wikipedia page", a certain amount of leverage is inherent in that statement (after all, the strictest interpretation of that phrase would result in a banning of speculation and discussion from the talk pages of BLP articles without immediate sourcing). XfD pages are explicitely styled as discussions, and so--barring extreme circumstances such as the posting of personal contact information--deleting all or part of them is detrimental to future editors who wish to understand how a given decision was reached. -- jonny- m t 06:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Agree fully with Majorly. Ironically, those comments were already echoed on ANI; Lawrence simply chose to ignore then in favour of pushing his version of the truth. MOAR DRAMA PLZ. Dihydrogen Monoxide ( party) 08:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep as per all above. While I appreciate that this nom was made in good faith, and I understand the reasons for making it, in my opinion there are no comments that are so controversial in there that we need to sacrifice the "audit trail" as it were. We should keep these things as open as possible, and deletion will not assist in that goal. Lankiveil ^{( complaints | disco)} 10:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC). reply

• Keep at current state of courtesy blanked, if an editor feels their comment was/is an issue they can request an admin to oversight the comment. As an observation we delete the afd, and this mfd what about the drv, AN/I, WP:AWNB and any other discussions about the issue we cant sanitise every comment. Gnan garra 11:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep WP:BLP does not trump WP:NOTCENSORED in this case, all Lawrence Cohen has been doing is screaming "OMG A MINOR! DELETE DELETE DELETE!" but without any good reasons. One could be mistaken for thinking this Conservapedia... Fosnez ( talk) 11:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The irony is, I am an editor on Conservapedia (though not an admin, unlike here), and yet I agree with you that we should keep this AfD page. From my experience of Conservapedia, its strict rules and tight censorship are both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, they are not afflicted with anywhere near the amount of vandalism and junk that we are; on the other hand, their arbitrary rules tend to drive users away and discourage the creation of new content (hence their difficulty in recruitment and retention of contributors, and their rather inadequate stock of articles). Walton ^One 12:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

• Move to close this debate as keep - there doesn't seem to be any further reason to keep this debate open. I am involved (ironically on the delete side) so can't close. Orderinchaos 12:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Seconded I think we are done here and this will soon generate more heat than light. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 13:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep as there aren't any BLP violations and it's been courtesy blanked, so there is no problem. People are allowed to have, and express negative views of minors. If the closing admin really wants to remove specific edits, I'm not going to be outraged by it, but I don't consider it to be necessary.
• Keep. BLP violations should be removed from pages, but the pages themselves should remain - it's important that the community knows why a page is deleted and that accountability remains. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 19:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.