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

The result was Clear WP:BLP speedy. Three reasons: 1) WP:BLP "one event" - this is about an event not a person. There is no bio here outside of the event. 2) That the event relates to the subject in question is only "claimed" - he may be a wholey innocent victim, being associated with a fairly horrid action. 3) This is a recreation. Any recreation of a BLP deletion needs a consensus that it is justified before recreation. We don't discuss it whilst having the article. If people are keen on this, I suggest they try to write a sourced NPOV article on the event, but not a biography on a (perhaps innocent) otherwise nonentity.--Doc^g 18:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For context: here's a rule that I would have speedied on if I'd thought about it. While I don't think the article met anything in WP:CSD, I think it was clearly speedy-able under the ArbComm ruling, and if I'd had my wits about me I'd have done it myself. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motari David

[edit]

BLP minefield of individual notable for only one event (and possibly not even that). The article seems to exist here because David Motari has been salted after repeated re-creations; however, I don't see any basis on which to speedy this article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This man is referenced, by name and picture, in several newspapers of record including The Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Australian, &c (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=David+Motari&btnG=Search+News). By having an article on him, we are not making available information that was not already public. Since there is no evidence that the mob are correct, we should frame the article with that in mind (strong referencing to very legitimate sources, make clear where allegations and contestable statements are from (e.g. "According to The Times...")). --Oldak Quill 18:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:ONEEVENT applies here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT focusses on having articles on subjects in newspaper articles about wider events, or articles relating to events where those events already have articles. The event that this man is famous for doesn't have a separate article (presumably David Motari will serve as an article for the event and the person). Since this event has been reported in newspapers of record across the world, and has been responded to by the Marines, it is significant and should have an article. --Oldak Quill 18:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creations of this article were temporarily protected for BLP concerns after the earliest articles established presented clear WP:BLP violation, and I can't help but wonder if the creation of an article in this space instead is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the protection policy. Anyone attempting to establish a page at David Motari on the date this article was created would have encountered the following notice: "WARNING: This page has been locked so that only some users can create it. If you are an administrator, it may be fully protected; please ensure that you are following the protection policy." However, there is a possibility that the creator was unaware and simply is unfamiliar with MOS guidelines on article naming. If lasting notability ensues from the publication of this video, it may gain sufficient notability to overcome WP:NEWS. Even if it does, however, an article on the event should not be named for the person per WP:ONEEVENT. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Moonriddengirl. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:43, 8 March 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.