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 redirect to Ward Churchill. Overall, there seems to be consensus that these articles should not be kept as separate articles. However, there does not appear to be consensus about whether these articles should be deleted outright or merged to other articles. I am therefore closing this as Redirect to Ward Churchill", leaving the articles' content available in their respective histories for possible merge elsewhere, after appropriate discussion on the respective talk pages. Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this randomly and can't believe that we thought it a good idea to have two dedicated articles about an investigation into the academic conduct of one academic, or about the controversy concerning one essay he wrote (which itself has an article already). We don't usually allow "Foo controversies" articles because they tend to give undue weight to the negative aspects of somebody's life. A fortiori, this applies to articles dedicated to one particular controversy, unless the person is so notable that a subarticle is warranted per WP:SS. In this case, though, the person isn't especially notable apart from the controversies about him, so the two main articles - about the person and his book - should be enough to cover the associated controversies in adequate depth. Because this seems to be already the case in the main articles Ward Churchill and On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, these subarticles can be deleted. If only to have a chance to keep our content BLP-compliant, we don't really need a walled garden of Ward Churchill controversy articles.  Sandstein  11:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein mentions the "chance to keep our content BLP-compliant". I am unaware of any any BLP policy violations in any of the articles. What are they?

Deicas (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unsure at to what BLP issues you are referring to above.

Deicas (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest Merging Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy to On the Justice of Roosting Chickens because the former is a response to the latter and the response section in the latter is short (some editing is probably called for but it's not urgent). But Delete Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation because it's already covered adequately in Ward Churchill and it's hardly the world's biggest or most consequential academic scandal. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I object to the deletion of Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation -- Strong Keep. This would have the effect of airbrushing the past. This airbrushing might be appealing to Ward Churchill's partisans but it would also be a NPOV violation. If the existance of Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation as a separate article is sufficiently objectionable then I suggest that it be merged with Ward Churchill with no loss of meaning or citations.

Deicas (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation being "hardly the world's biggest or most consequential academic scandal": I make no claim of "biggest" but the dismissal of a full professor for plagiarism and research falsification etc., with coverage by the national media, qualifies it as a big academic scandal.

Deicas (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only deletion policy-compliant arguments, herein, offered to support the article's deletion seem to be based on WP:NN. If I am missing any compliant reasons that are not based on WP:NN would someone please reference them? If, indeed, all policy-compliant reason *are* based on WP:NN then I'm hard-pressed to how see topics that have received the volume of press coverage that they have, over the duration that they've been covered, as WP:NN. Perhaps someone making the WP:NN deletion argument would like to extend their reasoning?

Deicas (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I won't use a deletion discussion for editorial choices, but I definitely suggest merging all three articles to a single one. Churchill is notable almost entirely for his publication of one article and the negative consequences thereof. Any attention that's been paid to him or his ideas otherwise is a side effect of that. Three articles are not, therefore, required. Two articles are not required either. I will express no opinion here as to whether the one article should be primarily about Churchill or about Roosting Chickens, except to say that WP:BLP1E probably doesn't apply to someone who is still being discussed fourteen years after the 1E. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. At the least, merge to Ward Churchill. I agree completely with Sandstein's reasoning. GregJackP Boomer! 05:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the two "controversy" articles as unnecessary; both controversy topics can be encyclopedically covered in the existing BLP and Book articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't think these two articles should be treated in the same AfD. I would like to see the AfDs separated. The two articles were created and written by different editors, they have widely different imports, scope, RS reportage, and repurcussions, and opinions are likely to be divided on the independent merits of each one. These are not minor, frivolous, or non-notable topics (especially the misconduct one). I propose and request that the AfDs be separated. Softlavender (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the articles have the same problems and can therefore be discussed separately. If no consensus emerges, we can start separate discussions.  Sandstein  08:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second Softlavender's suggestion to split into one AfD per article.

Deicas (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation. Important, highly controversial, highly notable WP:GNG topic/subject; too long to merge without undue overwheliming of parent article without loss of important data. I have no opinion, leaning to merge to Ward Churchill, on the 9/11 article. Softlavender (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My view is that this isn't so important as to require a dedicated article. Controversies should normally be covered in the articles about their subjects. We don't need all of this content in the main article; we are not a newspaper and it is not our job to regurgitate everything that has been reported in the media about a particular topic.  Sandstein  08:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein: Does your judgement "My view is that this isn't so important as to require a dedicated article" fall under the invalid reason for article deletion, per[Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process], "[a]rticles we are not interested in"?

Deicas (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are, as an encyclopedia, interested in the topic of Ward Churchill and his works and associated controversies, I suppose. But this does not mean that we need to cover this topic in more than one or two articles.  Sandstein  15:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein: With regard to your comment just above: I suggest that you withdraw this AfD and create AfD for each of Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy and Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation. We can have the keep-or-merge discussions there.

Deicas (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the issues are similar and the contents are related, so we can discuss this together.  Sandstein  17:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. It's routine for merge discussions, where the possibility of merging into a single article is at least fairly likely, for the discussion to be centralized. Forking this into two AfDs would be pointless proceduralism like that countermanded by WP:LAWYER / WP:BUREAUCRACY.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also concur. No need to split these out, they both address the same issue. Call it Permissive joinder, if we must label it. GregJackP Boomer! 00:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone point to Wikipedia style documents that would cast light on keep-or-merge decisions and separate controversies articles for BLP?

Deicas (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? This is a content issue, not a style matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the extent needed, and adjust the PoV for neutrality; otherwise delete. Together, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens and Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy might form a proper article. Together, Ward Churchill and Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation form one for certain. I'm skeptical anything from the two controversy pieces needs to be moved into the academic and book articles, but not opposed to it if there is. Regardless, we don't need any, much less two, WP:POVFORKed "controversy" articles about the same academic. I tend to agree with E.M.Gregory, below, that the article on the essay/book doesn't survive WP:GNG as a stand-alone topic, and that merging all these articles into a single article on the academic would produce a more encyclopedic result, and eliminate a PoV maintenance headache.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Revised. 21:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a separate article just on the phrase "Little Eichmanns" - or purportedly so, though the actual content doesn't match the premise. That's far too many articles on a barely notable academic who once put his foot a bit too far into his own mouth. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little Eichmann has little to do with Ward Churchill; it was a notable phrase before he used it. I've worked on that article some, now (though I agree it needs to better support its premise about usage/meaning).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)SMcCandlish: If you believe that the article (which one?) has POV issues I suggest that you tag the offending article with the POV template.

Deicas (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The merging process should resolve any such issues. Can tag it later if it still needs work in that regard. Tagging it now would be kind of WP:POINTy, and easily misinterpreted as an attempt to sway the AfD. You can tag it in the interim if you want, but I'll pass.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both of these highly inflated articles. Note, in particular, that On the Justice of Roosting Chickens appears at a glance to be an article about a book, (although it in fact covers both essay and book) and yet the book was hardly noted when published (I only found a review in the small activist mag Counterpunch) and would not support an article on its own. The essay probably could, but it is more usual in such cases to merge useful info into the bio.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  On a purely practical level, it is a lot of work to keep articles about controversial issues NPOV. Keeping 3 articles about a minor academic involved in a brief (albeit intense and national) controversy has the effect of multiplying the task of monitoring controversial articles beyond Wikipedians' capacity to keep up.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the whole lot. What we have here is a biography of a minor academic, who wrote one notable essay, which gave birth to a minor book and caused a controversy - the whole lot would best fit into a single article. Each of the articles individually barely manage to scrape over the GNG bar, as a single article it should clear it comfortably. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation into Ward Churchill and merge Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy into On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the misconduct investigation is already adequately covered in Ward Churchill and needs no more merging; the article can be deleted. I would redirect the 9/11 controversy article to On the Justice of Roosting Chickens such that interested editors can merge any relevant content from the history.  Sandstein  06:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein-- I don't see how your "already adequately covered" fits into the legitimate reasons for article deletion in List of policies and guidelines Favoring deletion and WP:DEL-REASON. Would you please explain you reasoning in the context of applicable policies and guidelines? As Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation has more complete coverage of the issue than Ward Churchill, wouldn't deletion of that content create a WP:NPOV violation?

Deicas (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most the the text above describes issues other than legitimate reasons for article deletion as found in List of policies and guidelines Favoring deletion and WP:DEL-REASON. I ask that editors strike-out reasons and reasoning not found therein. Deicas (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I read the comments above I suspect that there will be no consensus for any deletions. I suggest that the next steps should be: 1) close the AfD and; 2) propose the merger of [On the Justice of Roosting Chickens] into [Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy]. Assuming this course of action is taken, after the merge is performed we need to check that we are naming/citing/linking "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens"(book) AKA "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U. S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality" and "Some People Push Back"(essay) AKA '"Some People Push Back": On the Justice of Roosting Chickens' correctly; I'm not convinced that we are. Could we please merge the articles *one* pair of articles at a time to avoid confusion? Deicas (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing yet another set of article(s)/title(s) into this mix isn't helping. You need to address those issues elsewhere, on the appropriate talk page(s). Softlavender (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2015 (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.