Robyn Dawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This subject is notable. The story of these two boys has been covered internationally, continuously, for 18 years. It was recently the subject of a 60 Minutes segment. It was covered in magazines in the early 1990s. There's an existing article on Kimberly Mays, another child who was switched at birth. The topic itself is of encyclopedic interest because it is so rare. It will likely continue to be of enduring interest. I particularly object to it being speedily deleted without giving me an opportunity to post a hold-on request. --Bookworm857158367 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, assertion of notability on the DRV nom is not a valid DRV nomination. Give us evidence of why the deletion was not proper. Corvus cornix 18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Urm The article was deleted under A7, which requires "no assertion of notability". Both articles made the following claim of notability "Their story attracted international news coverage.", and one had an additional claim about being one of the better junior players of a particular sport in his country of residence. On the other hand, I'd like someone to look at it from a WP:BLP light, as I can't make up my mind. GRBerry 19:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (tweaked to reflect the merge GRBerry 00:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Overturn On a procedural basis, I am not happy with taking unilateral action twice. If an admin action is challenged in good faith, someone else should be involved in the follow up. As for BLP concerns regarding the articles, there is nothing detrimental being said about either boy, and their names are already widely known. The parents are also not accused of anything. Trying to keeep names out of WP after they've been broadcast on 60 minutes is a little absurd.DGG 19:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep deleted per BLP and ethical considerations. A 60 min programmes will not Google on this child's name later in life - we will. Totally encyclopaedic - plus there are no sources from which to write any biography. So we'd have a biography on a living person's life, that ONLY mentioned an unfortunate birth incident - unacceptable. This is a minor people - get a grip.--Doc^g 20:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been bold and added these together - the arguments will be identical for both--Doc^g 21:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list. If they were kids anymore, this might hold some water, but not with what we know. 18 years of press coverage asserted needs a better hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep deleted. Absolutely not. DRV is not an appropriate venue for BLP deletions. The correct action is to undergo dispute resolution, starting with convincing the deleting admin.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dispute resolution should never be a matter of course. AFD is the place to discuss controversial deletions, not begging and pleading with the admin who speedied the article out of process. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? When did this occur? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wasn't a BLP deletion when the discussion started; it was a garden variety A7 (see the deletion logs), which would have been a garden variety overturn as clearly incorrect due to explicit claims of notability in the article. BLP was first mentioned by myself after the discussion was here. GRBerry 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. You have to think about the effect that this will have on these kids later in life. If you're going to have an article on the person, you need to write a biography; not a chronicle of some accident at birth. Sean William 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, take to AFD The article made a claim of notability. Cases where that's questionable belong at AFD, not speedied and argued here. We have other articles on similar topics, such as Kimberly Mays. That's not just an Othercrapexists, it's an example of why the consideration of a full afd is necessary and speedy is improper. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, as if it were not blindingly obvious. This is a hospital fuck-up and will be forgotten next time a hospital fucks up. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Come back when mainstream sources have proper substantial biographical articles on these individuals, until then it might (at a pinch) merit a short sentence in the article on the hospital. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion' per Doc, Guy and SwatJester. ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per Doc and Guy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. This is a very trollish nomination, or a very stupid one, and I don't care which. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• From what I've seen, endorse deletion. I may change my opinion if presented with examples of this 18 years of media coverage. -Amarkov moo! 00:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion unless the articles can be verifiably expanded beyond "This boy was switched at birth." FCYTravis 01:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on the one source linked in the article, they can verifiably be expanded beyond that. I don't yet think they can be encyclopedically expanded beyond that. And given their young age (though they are now 18), I don't think they have any great significance. I think there is an encyclopedic article to be written on the general phenomenon of switched babys and precautions that hospitals take to prevent it... but this content isn't helpful, and it hasn't been started so far as I can see. So I come down to keep deleted (without endorsing the original deletion reasoning) with noplace useful to even redirect. GRBerry 02:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Doc glasgow's, and JzG's arguments are convincing. I cannot see how they are encyclopedic, but I may change my mind if there are more reliable sources available, as Amarkov has said. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper.

This is a speedy A7, "where the article does not assert the notability of the subject. --SunStar Net ^talk 08:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Royal Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)

New DRV to discuss solely the issue of whether the redirection was correct. I closed the earlier DRV (below) because undeletion had occurred. Subsequent to that time, disputes over the redirect have continued. See the ANI discussion, which has resulted in the redirect being protected and a call for the discussion of the redirect to come back here. Was redirection correct? GRBerry 17:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is virtually an orphan; the only link to it is in the article Monarchy in Canada. I suggest that an administrator protect redirect to that article in order to prevent it becoming a point-of-view fork of the latter article. --Tony Sidaway 17:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't the case before all the links to it were removed from other articles. About 12 or more used to link to it. --G2bambino 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And since this title is currently redirected there, that is a round trip redirect. I've eliminated it for now, per the MOS. Obviously, if this does not remain a redirect, the link can go back. GRBerry 17:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Delete I think Sam Blanning redircted it to protect the history under GFDL after a merge but I can't see that any merge has actually taken place. In which case I think we should go with his first conclusion and delete. If I'm mistaken about the merge I endorse but suggest that we protect the redirect to prevent edit warring. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merge took place last year. --G2bambino 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as closing admin. There was unbelievable consensus in the AfD to redirect the page to Monarchy in Canada, as all on AN/I stated. Unless people wish to argue that the consensus was wrong, I'm not sure what else there is to say. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. The AfD seems to have been perfectly in order. Mackensen (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse redirect, no evidence it's a separate concept, a single user asserting that consensus is wrong is not a good reason to have a fork. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse redirect the article was a total redundancy, redirect was the right choice. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The debate was closed as "no consensus" despite a clear consensus to delete. Apart from the sheer amount of delete comments, most keep comments are not particularly well-founded: "it has been kept before" is not grounds for a procedural keep, especially not after half a year; "it can be maintained" and "it works better than the search function" are proven wrong by precedent; and "it helps people find things if they don't know how to spell them" simply isn't true, because you can't find people on a list if you don't know if e.g. their name starts with "Ar", "Aer", "Er" or "Ier", or some variation thereof.

This page and its subpages purport to be a list of all people with articles in Wikipedia. In that, they're hopelessly outdated since, unlike categories, they need manual upkeep. Clearly many people find these lists problematic, outdated and/or unmaintainable. It is therefore not a productive approach to say that "not everybody agrees so let's not do anything". The closing admin declined to respond on his talk page, so I'm listing it here to request overturn and delete. >Radiant< 09:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. The case for deletion was clearly persuasive enough to get a clear consensus, and the arguments on the keep side for maintaining this hopelessly unmaintainable list are not strong enough to justify calling it any other way. The misspelling argument is pointless for an even better reason than the nominator points out: you can use Google to search Wikipedia (which often works far better than the inbuilt engine) and Google is very good at allowing for misspellings. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. There was clearly consensus to abolish the present system; the only non-clear point was how to delete it (i.e. what info should be saved). Kusma (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete but hold on. I think the consensus was clear for the deletion, but there were various concerns expressed, either in form "Keep for now" or "Reform". There should be an additional discussion on how an "exit strategy" should be performed and the information moved & reorganized; some proposals were present at the AfD, but a centralized discussion should be held somewhere WPP:BIO? WP:VP? I'm not sure. Duja► 10:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not overturn. I disagree that the consensus was clear, and agree with the closing administrator. --Alvestrand 11:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus - it was "suspended" when I went to look - I wanted to add my opinion, but I couldn't, so if nothing else this deserves another AFD. Throwing in my opinion, I think this should be moved to userspace for now pending an overhaul - I actually agree with the /theory/ of improving navigation and being an annotated contents page of people auto-generated by a bot, because the search is a disaster, but editing by hand obvious isn't working. I believe it's close which makes for a "no consensus", I also don't believe that the delete argument is compelling enough if a technical solution could be sought, which I believe it can, and most of the delete arguments are "per nom" which consist of saying it's impossible to maintain (which could be worked around via a bot for example), an "indiscriminate list" (if turned into a navigational aide and put into Wikipedia space is moot), and beside those two there was no real compelling argument to delete and this deletion is likely to prevent the creation of future, similar, useful maintainable lists (which is my experience of AFD/DRV in these sorts of situations) -Halo 12:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The debate was suspended out of process by an involved user (indeed, I've never seen such suspensions before, I suspect he made that up) but this was quickly undone and the debate ran for the regular amount of time. That seems hardly grounds for a "procedural relist". Note that in theory this list page is a nice idea, but in practice it really doesn't work at all. >Radiant< 12:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm just adding my point of view and it stopped me voting, which it did, and forgot about it until my watchlist said it was on DRV. My point was expressly that it's a good idea in theory, while agreeing that the current situation doesn't work and a technical solution should be sought as it could be an extremely useful navigational aide, and the deletion of the page will inevitably prevent a technical replacement from ever happening. I agree with the /page/ and the theory behind it, which few of the people voting delete have actually covered dismissing it as unmaintainable, while not agreeing with the current /technical solution/ behind it's generation. Perhaps some of the people voting delete, particularly those who said "delete per nom" or "delete as unmaintainable" in the original AFD, should address whether they'd be against a similar proposed technical solution? -Halo 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this. Arguments for delete are: hopelessly, irredeemably incomplete, useless for all practical purposes. Arguments for keep are: WP:ILIKEIT. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Consensus on the AfD seemed pretty clearly in favor of deletion, and I'm having a hard time finding any ambiguity to it. As stated by the nom, even on a straight up and down headcount the tally is heavily in favor of deleting the article, and when you factor in the weight of the arguments it tilts even further in that direction. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 15:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete As said before, there was a fairly clear consensus. Saving my opinion about the article itself for when/if a new AfD is opened in this DRV fails to get the desired result. JuJube 17:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. I agree with Radiant's reading of the debate. WP:USEFUL is not a dismissively bad argument, but it's also not very strong, and there's nothing I can see that would reasonably lead to dismissing of delete arguments. In this case, I would count the keep arguments as legitimate arguments, they were just in the (clear) minority here. Mangojuice^talk 17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete Clear consensus to delete, weight or number of arguments apparently was not taken into account when closing. ^(H) 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus First, it was a reasonable read of the discussion given that many of the arguments on both sides boil down to like it/don't like it. If that test is to be applied, it needs to be applied to both sides of the debate. WP:NOT USEFUL is no more valid than WP:USEFUL. A lot of the more valid discussion is not so much about page deletion, but about policies, tools, and means for indexing and vandal fighting. An XfD is not the appropriate forum for such a discussion. Open a centralized discussion on that issue. If consensus forms, then we can readdress these lists in light of that discussion. GRBerry 17:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Radiant makes a strong argument (I once contributed heavily to this list but his argument makes great sense to me), but then, I'm reluctant to make DRV "round 2" of AFD. What do people think about a compromise: moving this to the Wikipedia namespace? --W.marsh 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete - Delete arguments strong, keep arguments poor, consensus to delete apparent. Otto4711 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus. Xfd is not a vote. There was no consensus on any points raised by either sides. The discussion mostly consisted of useful vs. not useful, along with a few "waste of resources" and "indiscrimate/incomplete" - I don't see any merit in these arguments. User:Carcharoth had some great ideas, and I think this probably played a large part in the decision to not close the discussion based on a straight vote count. --- RockMFR 20:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus. The arguments on both sides are valid. Consensus is not about majorities or supermajorities or even about who has the stronger arguments. It is about finding a reasonable solution that tries to address the points made by all sides, and that every reasonable person can accept, even if it is not the perfect solution. Yes, an alphabetical index of names of people is a useful navigation aid that belongs in Wikipedia. Yes, this list as currently implemented is largely unmaintainable. But deletion solves nothing. The solution is to come up with a way of making such a list maintainable, whether it is done with the current software through bots, categories and/or templates, or by proposing and implementing changes to the MediaWiki software itself. DHowell 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: is it intended that these pages be replaced with an appropriate set of categories, as proposed during the deletion discussions? If not, then what is the point of deleting them which would result in a net loss of information? If so, where is the planning for the replacement categories? —Phil | Talk 06:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. The consensus to delete in the AfD was clear and overwhelming: 10 keep arguments vs. 26 delete arguments, and the deletion arguments were all quite strong, pointing out glaring flaws in a huge, manually-updated, mostly unknown index such as this. Krimpet (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another controversial WP:BLP deletion, heavily contested on the article's talk page. This article had over 30 sources (as can be verified by the Google cache ([3]), and is a central figure in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal. Although her name was confidential during much of the scandal, it has already been published by reliable media sources, including Fox News. Although there were some issues with the article's overall tone, these could have been handled by a number of methods short of deletion. It could have been handled by stubbing the article (and protecting it for a while, if necessary) so that changes could be discussed first on talk and vetted for potential BLP issues. It could have been handled by redirecting to a section in the main scandal article and then protecting that redirect (indeed, this was done briefly today, and I have no idea why it didn't remain that way). Deletion and salting without any discussion was clearly inappropriate. A brief perusal of Google demonstrates the subject's notability, and even if the existing article was problematic, salting is unjustified unless no good article could possibly be written (or redirect placed) at that title. That clearly is not the case here. Also, a previous AFD resulted in Keep. *** Crotalus *** 04:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all Some commentary has been moved to the talk page. It will need to be courtesy blanked later. Please do not say anything else that will need to be courtesy blanked. GRBerry 13:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, wow. Undelete and fix. There was a good version to go back to at one point, even if that ends up being the one kept at AfD a year ago. If you want it deleted, AfD's down the hall. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete Heavily covered by the media, clearly notable, this should've been sent to AFD. — MichaelLinnear 04:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete. Whether we like it or not, there are sources that exist to write about her. I don't see any urgent BLP concerns that warrant deletion. --- RockMFR 04:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Although, it obviously should be left up to editorial judgment (read: not speedy deletion) whether to merge/redirect to the main article. The sort of details in the article are the kind that nobody will care about in 5 years (or now, for that matter). --- RockMFR 04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsalt, redirect and protect. - Her name is in the first sentence of 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal, for crying out loud. AfD is fine too. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete - *** Crotalus ***, Thank You. I am surprised by the heavy hand wielded by two editors who had not (to the best of my knowledge) been interested or edited at the two articles before today. I uploaded an appropriate image of the false accuser (Crystal Gail Mangum) a couple times, which was deleted each time with no record of who did the deletion or why. This move does not fit in with WP policy, AFAIK. Did those two editors act in good faith, or should they be called on the carpet for their actions? Duke53 | ^Talk 04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The image was apparently deleted for lack of a fair use rationale. The article was deleted for reasons that are unclear to me; the existing state of the article had some problems, but these could have been handled by one of the two other methods I described above. A full deletion and salting was not appropriate. *** Crotalus *** 04:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There was discussion and a defense of the fair use rationale of this same exact image within the last two weeks and it was decided then to keep the image. What has changed since then? Duke53 | ^Talk 05:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Does she really need her own article? No, not really, but that's an issue for AFD. Since her name has already been made public by the media, that's not an issue for us, so overturn and list at AFD. Considering that I have been edit conflicted by four people wanting this overturned, we may even want to consider a speedy close as a clearly out of process deletion. --BigDT 04:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• David Gerard had it as a protected redirect, which I think was about right. It should be unsalted and replaced by a protected redirect. The article about the affair has all the relevant information, and the article about the person had become an attack piece. Deleting under biographies of living persons was correct in this case. The history must not be undeleted. --Tony Sidaway 04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated in the nomination, I have no objection to either redirecting to a section of the main scandal article, or deleting the history and protecting a new stub that can then be further discussed on talk with a careful eye to BLP issues. But having a redlink there is clearly wrong. *** Crotalus *** 04:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There may be an argument for a protected redlink. I'd like to hear why it was deleted. I was the person who made the redirect, which I thought was about right. --Tony Sidaway 04:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and protect. Review it for tone, and DISCUSS changes. Remember that 'balanced' does not mean 'say one good thing for every bad thing'--it means that the article shouldn't be slanted--at least that's what people editing other articles seem to think. Marieblasdell 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. I don't even need to see the article - if it survives an AfD, speedy deletion is never justified'. BLP issues may require a revert back a long time, but not a speedy. Especially since 30 sources is unquestionably not a violation. If people wish to use BLP to mean "any article which could cause any concievable harm to anyone ever", then they either need a consensus to do that, or they need a statement from someone who can dictate policy. Which includes nobody here. -Amarkov moo! 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually the article was pretty rank. --Tony Sidaway 04:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And...? -Amarkov moo! 04:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No And. No But, either. It was vile. --Tony Sidaway 05:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously people did not agree with that. I do not understand why the concept that community discussion overrules vague claims of badness is so hard to grasp. -Amarkov moo! 05:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Community discussions do not overrule Biography of living persons. No vague claims, either. It was vile, an attack piece. --Tony Sidaway 05:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Or maybe it was fair and you are simply biased. I noticed your user talk page is filled with complaints that you single-handedly make massive editing changes all over Wikipedia. I fail to see how this works toward consensus. It's my opinion that the article is far too personal to you for you to work on it. Perhaps it would be prudent for you simply to recuse yourself from the entire issue and search Wikipedia for other articles you're not quite so passionate about that you can edit. Regards, Ikilled007 06:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  See Wikipedia:Be bold. My massive edits have a habit of sticking, despite the fact that I don't edit war. Seems to suggest that I've got a good eye for what will work on wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Tony, earlier today you stated that you had never read WP:BLP "I haven't read our biographies of living persons policy, I just follow commonsense"[4], now you're citing it? Uncle uncle uncle 05:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely. Any questions? --Tony Sidaway 05:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep! - Did you read the policy this afternoon, or do you just guess at what it says? Uncle uncle uncle 05:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope, still haven't read it, no intention to. Yes, I just guess what it says. Seems to work quite well. --Tony Sidaway 06:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If the community discussion arrives at the decision that it does not violate BLP, there is no issue of overruling to consider. You realize that your arguments are beginning to look like "The community can't overrule my decisions on if an article violates policy"? -Amarkov moo! 05:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Community discussion alone does not determine whether an article violates Biography of living persons. --Tony Sidaway 05:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Even accepting that ridiculous statement for the sake of argument, a handful of admins alone don't determine if an article violates BLP either. -Amarkov moo! 05:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually they do. At the end of this discussion an admin is going to have a look and see if the article violated Biography of living persons. It can't just be undeleted willy-nilly. --Tony Sidaway 05:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, no, the admin will evaluate the consensus on if it violated BLP, not just impose whatever they happen to think. It can't be kept deleted willy-nilly either. -Amarkov moo! 05:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That's wishful thinking. Consensus does not govern Biographies of living persons. --Tony Sidaway 05:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Are there any admins following this exchange? Is this attitude in any way at all appropriate? I think this warrants some looking into. Perhaps some of Tony Sidaway's other edits need further examination. He clearly doesn't think that Wikipedia policies apply to him. Again, I ask, is this a proper attitude? Ikilled007 06:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you explain this further? I'm sure most clueful administrators understand why David protected the redirect. He was implementing Wikipedia policy, so it's hard to argue that he thinks it doesn't apply to him. My own involvement was limited to a single bold edit, quite in keeping with the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete - the problems can be fixed. 24.252.101.35 05:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  ::"Actually the article was pretty rank". And ..., the method used to bury it was equally as 'rank'. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really. Routine delete and salt. The damage to persons caused by such attack articles merits this. --Tony Sidaway 05:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure you're aware of the height of interest in this story, Tony. I don't know how much of it got across the pond, but there is really no way that a Wikipedia entry could do any harm in this case - she's famously notorious, without question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And the media fallout is still continuing to this day. — MichaelLinnear 05:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Heightened public interest does not justify the construction of attack articles about private individuals. --Tony Sidaway 05:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it wasn't always an attack article, and she's not a private individual anymore. You can't simply shout BLP without a little oomph behind it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I reviewed it, David Gerard reviewed it, and presumably so did the admin who deleted it. That's oomph enough. She's still a private individual. --Tony Sidaway 05:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm, the DRV is saying different though. — MichaelLinnear 05:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? Not that I've noticed. --Tony Sidaway 05:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Is this sort of behavior really routine? If so, what's the point of anyone working on Wikipedia in good faith? Marieblasdell 05:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's easy to have your work remain on Wikipedia. Just don't write attack pieces. --Tony Sidaway 05:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh, I'll hope that you didn't mean that the way it sounds. It comes across to me as a nasty insult toward my good-faith, though minor, attempts to improve the article. Marieblasdell 05:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No it's intended to reassure you that this case does not impinge on the general Wikipedia editor. --Tony Sidaway 05:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think what some people are missing here is that just about everything relevant to this woman's notability is already in 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal. The article about the woman herself was just an excuse for muckraking into her none-too-salubrious past. Not a suitable subject for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 05:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What has made her less notable than she was a year ago, when the vote was to not delete the article? Marieblasdell 05:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think anyone has argued that the woman herself isn't notable. The issue is that the article was vile. --Tony Sidaway 06:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You keep saying that the article is vile, rank. Since when is the Wikipedia editing rule that there must be 'nothing that would bring the blush of shame to the maiden cheek', to quote a typical Victorian editor. I may have overlooked your edits in the last week, where you tried to delete the inappropriate sections? Marieblasdell 06:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  When I say it was rank, and vile, I mean that it was a muckraking hatchet job. There is a very storng policy against that kind of article on Wikipedia. The policy is known as Biographies of living persons. --Tony Sidaway 06:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Which you say you have never read? :)Duke53 | ^Talk 06:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Written policy is greatly overrated. It does not rule Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There is an article about Virginia Tech massacre and then an article about the person who caused the mess, Seung-Hui Cho. This scandal and then the woman who made false accussations is no different and should have both articles. SakotGrimshine 12:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Bad analogy, given the "L" part of "BLP". Tarc 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Some editors actually feel that BLP applies to all biographies - WP:AN#WP:BLP_and_the_deceased. They do however, fail to see that the vast majority of new information enters Wikipedia unsourced. And that by speedily deleting unsourced information, they're not just getting rid of bad information entering Wikipedia, but pretty much all information. - hahnchen 17:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete. There was absolutely no justification to delete it without any form of discussion. I will agree that there may have been issues with some of the details, but she is absolutely a public figure at this point, and while the facts of the case reflect poorly upon her, they are still facts. The article was extensively sourced with reliable sources, and the information that appears to be upsetting you the most is the information used by the defense lawyers to deprecate her honesty, which is highly relevant under the circumstances. FWIW, the extent of my edits on that page were limited to reverting a pair of particularly persistent vandals, so I really have no personal stake in this issue. Horologium talk - contrib 05:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You just shot your case in the foot by admitting that the article was not balanced. --Tony Sidaway 06:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at all. I'd hope that the proper response for an unbalanced article would be editing, not deletion. If we delete any article that has 'issues with some of the details', which was what he 'admitted to', there wouldn't be much content in Wikipedia. Marieblasdell 06:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I'd like to see why it was deleted. I think the redirect was okay. However deletion is a good temporary option. Recall also that just about everything we know about this person that is relevant and encyclopedic is already in the main article about the scandal. --Tony Sidaway 06:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the reasons given for deleting it, over on the talk page, was that it was extensively sourced! Also, that it had positive material in it--a reference to her 3.0 GPA. I agree that her GPA isn't something important, but I'm sure it was added in an attempt to provide positive balancing information. Marieblasdell 05:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the article was ridiculously heavily sourced. This isn't unusual in the case of attack articles. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue_weight. --Tony Sidaway 06:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  (more comments at talk)

  Would the editor who wrote the above: "more comments at talk" mind pointing out where, and which 'talk' it was moved to? I can't find it anywhere; I'm starting to believe that the comments were simply deleted, which I feel is a 'no-no'. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  They're here: [5].

Not terribly relevant. The way, the truth, and the light 22:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete. Out of control editors unilaterally took it upon themselves to forcefeed their Point of View on Wikipedia. The notion that Crystal Gail Mangum does not warrant a biographical article is so absurd that it can only come from a mendacious reviewer. It's obvious that Wikipedia is the new frontline of ideological warfare and it's disgusting that editors can't work toward consensus. The article's redirecting was a heinous act of bad faith. Ikilled007 06:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to hear from the two admins involved in this decision (Tony Sidaway and David Gerard) precisely what was the problem with the article. Not "violates BLP' or "Violates undue weight". I am asking for objections to specific phrases or sections, so that those who feel that this article is valid understand the rationale for a speedy delete. As I noted on the talk page for the article, Monica Lewinsky and Monica Coghlan were also people who were tangentially involved in a single notable issue; I will be a bit provacative and mention QZ, who was similarly unwittingly involved, and was also the subject of an alleged BLP vio. And Tony, please don't misrepresent what I said. I said there was issues with some of the details (such as the GPA, which was irrelevant; the whole college enrollment thing was irrelevant), but that doesn't mean I said the article was unbalanced, and as I noted earlier, the portions that you probably dislike the most are the ones that are most relevant to the case. Horologium talk - contrib 06:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently only one of the guys you mentioned above is an admin ... from what I am understanding there was also a second (unnamed) admin involved in deleting and burying the article, etc. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be User:David Gerard who has been busily nuking everything related to this article. Photos, previous history...Both have been working seemingly in tandem on this since the whole thing erupted. Horologium talk - contrib 07:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that somebody mentioned ("I reviewed it, David Gerard reviewed it, and presumably so did the admin who deleted it") another admin (as yet not named) as being involved in the feeding frenzy, not just the two guys previously mentioned. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the log (at the top of this discussion), it appears that User:Zsinj was the one who deleted it. Horologium talk - contrib 07:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All i did (or so I thought) was cleaning up the history of the page by deleting all revision except for the one which contained the protectedpage template. Zsinj^Talk 12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Would this not be solved by redirecting the article to 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal? >Radiant< 07:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It was a redirect, but it's been contested, and User:David Gerard nuked the article and salted it, with no discussion permitted, please. Horologium talk - contrib 07:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As noted in the nomination, the above would be an acceptable solution to me. (I can't, of course, speak for the other commenters.) Another possibility is reducing the article to a stub and then protecting it, and discussing changes on the talk page to avoid BLP issues. This has been done before with other articles, I think. *** Crotalus *** 07:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I could live with a stub being expanded into a full article through consensus. What happened here was not that. Horologium talk - contrib 07:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete - Get the history back, maybe switch it to a redirect. The application of BLP is a fucking joke around here, we'll be blanking articles on criminals next because we're giving the crime "undue weight", and deleting them for "deceny" reasons because they're fat. We're a fucking encyclopedia. - hahnchen 07:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• BLP beats all the "votes" possible on DRV. This was established recently by Jeff's previouis exciting arbitration case and is about to be established in the next one - David Gerard 07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Please explain to me why neither protecting a redirect, nor protecting a stub and then carefully discussing additions on the talk page, would have met the requirements of BLP. Why is an ugly redlink needed? Furthermore, the discussion on both the last AFD and this DRV clearly calls the BLP allegations into question. This is why I wanted to draw the line earlier than this — if this keeps up, pretty soon we'll have nothing on Wikipedia but hagiographies. *** Crotalus *** 13:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "BLP" is not a magic word that can be used to justify out-of-process deletions and protections. You have to discuss, allow other users to discuss and explain how the article was so drastically in violation of WP:BLP that this action was necessary. Prolog 09:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You have to first demonstrate that this is a BLP violation. You must then demonstrate that there's no non-BLP-violation available. And so on and so forth. You can't just scream "BLP! BLP!" and have it be done with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't work like that. We've grown up a bit. Attack articles are speediable anyway. --Tony Sidaway 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it does work like that. Thiswould be an excellent time to read WP:BLP, Tony. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I predict two things: firstly, sooner rather than later the interpretation of the biography of living persons policy will be clarified by the arbitration committee; secondly, you will not like it one little bit. --Tony Sidaway 17:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Without looking at this one yet, I simply note that a claim of WP:BLP is not a self validating claim. To stand, it needs to be supported by specific facts about the article and its prior versions; the criteria being set out within WP:BLP. Are those criteria met? GRBerry 13:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete. The article survived Afd by strong consensus. The proper forums for changes, deletion etc. in this case are WP:AFD and Talk:Crystal Gail Mangum. Looking at the page histories and the logs, this whole mess seems to be a WP:POINT violation involving two or three users. Despite how good their intentions might be, this is simply disruptive. Prolog 09:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (also known as WP:POINT) refers to someone making an edit that he knows to be damaging in order to illustrate the potentially damaging effect of a suggested line of action or of actions performed under an existing policy. It doesn't apply to good faith actions performed by Wikipedians in order to improve the encyclopedia. A good faith removal under Biographies of living persons is, furthermore, calculated to reduce disruption, so it's hard to argue that it's more disruptive than maintaining unencyclopedic content on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Controversial bold actions in controversial articles usually lead to drama. There were over 700 revisions to revert to, and that fact combined with the edit button and the talk page would have produced a much more appropriate result. Prolog 15:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at all. The article on the scandal has all relevant encyclopedic information about the person. I'd like to see a protected redirect here. --Tony Sidaway 17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep, merge, redirect, delete – that's for the community to discuss. Redirecting and then protecting would be inappropriate, unless there is a consensus to do so. The editors in the last AFD certainly thought this should have its own article. Prolog 18:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete. Due to the amount of problems BLP-related articles are experiencing with regard to deletion, undeleting it would allow further discussion which is clearly warranted. BLP is not a magic wand to make not-nice articles disappear. Zsinj^Talk 12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete with full restore and reprimand the deleters -- She is not a victim or even alleged victim. She is a victimizer who falsely accused three people of rape. Her false allegations likely were motivated in part from her own racism. There's an article about the guy who kicked in and shot up V-TECH, so there should be an article about her. The real victims were the people she falsely accused. Wikitruth.info has a good version explaining this. SakotGrimshine 12:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave it as it is: What we have here is an article including every single bit of information that any media source has managed to dig up about this person, including medical records, grade point average, previous unrelated employment, dates of birth of her children - and this is the cleaned up version. Many of the originating sources used in this article - quotes from the lawyers of the accused, her former employer (whose club is now getting all kinds of free advertising), opinion pieces and so on - are hardly objective and reliable sources, even if they are quoted by others. Everything left after removing the irrelevant personal information and the information from questionable sources is already in the main article. The administrative actions, while bold, were entirely correct and within the requirements of BLP. Risker 12:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete Redirect to the incident maybe, but just turning this into a redlink is very misguided. I'll now load IRC so I can hear the snarky comments about me. --W.marsh 14:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete too many sources to qualify for G10.Geni 14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted Not notable in herself and a hindrance to her future, we are not hand of fate in charge of hanging albatrosses about people's neck. Fred Bauder 14:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete Although it's practically piling on at this point. Other than Tony Sidaway and David Gerard, who seem to think they don't need to answer to anyone but themselves, I think there is consensus that CGM is a proper subject for an article. I looked at the previous version via Google, and it could probably be cut down to 1/2 to 1/3 its previous length by simply eliminating information that is already available in the main article - which is also the same material that I suspect is most objectionable to Sidaway and Gerard. Unlearned hand 14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The people who blanked/protected redirected the article might have been trying an IAR-type thing, which they believe would better the project, so people probably shouldn't get annoyed with them. The complete initial lack of an explanation and avoidance of discussion of the issue until badgered into it helps better nothing, though. Voretus 15:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• undelete the amount of interest and coverage at Wikipedia alone speaks for itself. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 15:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - I am unconvinced that there is any persuasive reason to keep this separately from the scandal article. What about her is significant that is not something that would be covered in a well-written article on the scandal? Phil Sandifer 15:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per WP:CSD#G10, pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject. It is abundandtly clear form the content and history of this article and 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal thast both have always exiosted primarily as a vendetta against this individual, pursued zealously by the team and their supporters. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  AFD result was keep, not speedy delete per G10, so the article could have been reverted back to a proper revision, which makes a G10 speedy incorrect. We revert vandalism and delete libelous content, we don't delete articles because they have been the target of such edits. Prolog 15:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete: I've read through the entire deleted article and I'm still confused as hell as to how anybody calls this an attack article. I'm also failing to see how this article is in any way a BLP violation. The article is/was properly sourced with reliable sources, and clearly stated only what facts exist. Regardless, it was not a candidate for speedy deletion. This is what AfD is for, people. - auburnpilot talk 15:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, this article has certainly gone downhill in tone and uphill in sourcing since the AFD in June last year. While my reasons in that AFD for supporting a merge are no longer valid, I still believe that merging or redirecting to the article on the scandal is the best solution. The closing admin should drop the list of sources in the last (non-redirect) deleted version onto the talk page of the scandal article for consideration. Coverage of the scandal should adhere to WP:NPOV. While that will make her look bad, it should be done in the way set out at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Let the facts speak for themselves. GRBerry 15:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (For the avoidance of doubt, I do not believe that this is a valid BLP deletion, I believe that it is invalid on the explicit terms of WP:BLP. GRBerry)[reply]
• Comment: This really needs to be added to the RfAr about the QZ deletion. This is getting to involve the same issues with many of the same participants. I'd also like to add that the uncivil, combative attitude of the deletionists, especially Tony Sidaway, is not helpful. The way, the truth, and the light 16:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologise if I have been uncivil in this discussion. As far as I'm aware this has not been the case. --Tony Sidaway 17:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete in the face of the AfD debate, which was hevily in favor of keep, a well sourced article on a person whose name has been made very public should not simply be speedy deleted. Editing down, possibly. If some versions of the article include unsourced or PoV content, reverrt, and possibly selectively delete or oversight such versions. Clearly not a proper speedy delete -- speedy is supposed to be for uncontroversial matters. Not a BLP issue, as BLP does not support deelting well-sourced content. If supported as an IAR action this seems to fall into the category of likely to be controversial actiosn where the use of IAR is unwise and will be reverted. 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DESiegel (talk • contribs).

  Much of the content in the article would be hard to support as well sourced, or even encyclopedic. Much of it was sourced, and heavily so, but that's not the same as saying it's balanced. Remember that our neutral point of view policy is to be taken very seriously, and attack articles, even heavily sourced ones, even articles that have survived a deletion discussion, can still be speediable. --Tony Sidaway 17:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you've made your opinion clear, Tony. You might want to actually read a couple of these policies you keep quoting instead of repeating yourself here over and over again. Unlearned hand 18:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Particularly in this case, written policy lags considerably behind application. See for instance the arbitration ruling I cite below, which isn't written up in any policy yet but applies wiki-wide. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The closing admin should take a look at this principle adopted by the arbitration committee in November by 6-0. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As a former professor of mine was fond of saying, "True, but irrelevant." That policy does not apply here, except in your opinion, not the community's. By deliberately choosing to spit in the face of the community, this whole drama was created. If proper procedure had been followed, any problems with the article could have been fixed, and we wouldn't be dragged through all this crap. Unlearned hand 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The principle behind the Rachel Marsden case refers to an entirely different concept. The Rachel Marsden article may have been a hack job, but it is possible to write a balanced article reflecting various media/commentary views on her. If the media and public portrayal of this girl was almost entirely negative, then that is how we, as an encyclopedia would present her. Do we need sympathisers and prison penpals to write a glowing paragraph on Clayton Waagner? - hahnchen 18:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I reserve judgement on the comparison as I have never seen the old Rachel Marsden article. The way, the truth, and the light 19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deleted as relevant bits are already in the scandal article. Going by this entry on Public Figures, I would conclude that this individual still qualifies as a private figure, despite the notoriety of this case. Therefore, following BLP and Jimbo's own words "We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.", I feel this article should be deleted, and careful consideration to sources and comments used in 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal should be used to ensure no violations of BLP occur there, either. --InkSplotch 18:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you figure? From Public Figure: "A person accused of a high profile crime may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established on this basis." If Evans, Seligmann, and Finnerty can involuntarily become public figures because of Mangum's allegations, it follows to reason that she becomes a public figure for her involvement in the case (which, of course, was eventually revealed as a hoax). Ms. Mangum is unquestionably a public figure, at least under American law. Unlearned hand 18:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't say unquestionably...I question it. But even if she does qualify as a "limited public figure," that applies to her participation in the Duke scandal (duly covered in the scandal article) and not to her past or her private life. It may have benefited her prosecution to release such information to the press, but that doesn't mean such a topic is suitable for Wikipedia. --InkSplotch 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you an attorney? BLP, essentially, is to keep Wikipedia from getting sued. CGM is a public figure (not a limited public figure), and there's nothing in the article that was deleted that would cause Wikipedia any legal liability (since it was all properly sourced). That being said, there was a lot in the article that could easily be culled, but given that she is a notable public figure, there is some relevant information about her that does not belong in the main article. If anything, her own article should be more sympathetic than the main article, because there's not much of anything to say about her in that context that can be anything but negative, unfortunately. Unlearned hand 21:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Not me, how about you? I understand the Wikimedia Foundation is in need of new legal counsel. That being said, I disagree with you on several points, and you haven't said anything to change my mind. I don't believe she's a public figure, I don't believe BLP is, essentially, "to keep Wikipedia from getting sued", and most of all, I believe in the essence of BLP that this article was properly deleted and should remain that way. And as this discussion continues to grow, it looks like I'm not alone in that view. Thank you for responding to my comment, but I don't think we're making any progress changing each other's minds. --InkSplotch 22:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I am. And while I'm not giving legal advice, etc etc etc, I see no problem with the article. I wasn't aware WP was looking for new counsel. Interesting. Unlearned hand 22:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In any case, Wikipedia does not exclude non-public figures. The way, the truth, and the light 19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia does provide for a greater presumption of privacy for non-public figures, which I feel applies here. Even as a "limited public figure", I feel adequate coverage is provided in the Duke scandal article, and currently an article on her just runs afoul of BLP. --InkSplotch 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete, deletion is not the only solution to a bad article. Surprise, you can edit them too. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. It looks like a clear case to me. This subject is clearly notable and the article was completely sourced and presented no legal issues. It does not look like an 'attack page' to me, and if it is, it could be rewritten using consensus as any other article is. This person is notable enough that a person coming to Wikipedia would expect to find something and a redlink is not really acceptable.
• In addition, given the controversial nature of this case, there is a strong appearance that any deletion was made in bad faith. I am not accusing anything - but many people may think of it as censorship. The way, the truth, and the light 19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, people's opinions on notability do not trump BLP. Corvus cornix 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete, this has got to stop. There is plenty of source material available for an article on this. If the article was bad, stub and semiprotect, don't just hit the big red button. BLP prohibits negative unsourced material about living persons, and I am 100% behind that. But it does not prohibit negative sourced material. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, an almost or completely negative article, even if sourced, runs foul of BLP. That's always worth remembering. Mackensen (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't recall seeing that, necessarily, Mackensen. We have an article on John Lee Malvo, one of the Washington snipers. What if Jeffrey Dahmer were still alive? There's not too much that's good to say about him, so would we simply not have the article? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bizarrely enough, favorable information is being used as 'proof' that the article is unbalanced. (Her GPA. ) Marieblasdell 21:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I cited it as evidence that the article was excessively detailed for the subject matter. As I said at the time, even Drew Barrymore's GPA isn't in her article. It's utterly irrelevant to the reason why Mangum is famous, as are the numbers and ages of her children. --Tony Sidaway 22:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That could of course be said of many detailed biography articles here. It's hardly persuasive. The way, the truth, and the light 23:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Insofar as it is true of any biography that its facts are assembled without regard to balance, that biography is a problem for Wikipedia because it does not comform to WP:BLP. The fact that it doesn't persuade you is of no import. --Tony Sidaway 00:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete There is no BLP violation; the material is so widely public that having it in WP will not make the problem worse, nor will removing it help. If the name had not been widely disclosed I would of course have supported the immediate removal of the article DGG 19:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please heed these proscriptions at WP:BLP:

1. Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy.
2. Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability.
3. the rule of thumb should be "do no harm".

4. Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

   — Jimbo Wales ^[1]

Corvus cornix 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree with every one of those principles, Corvus. But let's go through them.

1. Regard to subject's privacy: Using information which was already published in reputable sources which are nationally or internationally available does not violate a subject's privacy. The information is, in this case, already a matter of wide public knowledge.
2. Relevant to notability: The subject is notable due to involvement in this case.
3. Do no harm: Again, this matter is already a permanent one of public record. We're not bringing out information nobody knew, we're summarizing information that's already been widely publicized.
4. No tabloid journalism: Again, we're not bringing out some sensationalistic fact that very few people were aware of. We're summarizing existing source material, which was already widely available and widely read.

• Again, I fully agree with the principles of BLP. But it is a remedy which must be applied carefully. Sometimes, negative things regarding living people do bear mention. Sometimes, a person becomes notable for doing something bad, or for something bad which happens to them. It's not our job to make value judgments here. It is our job to make sure that any negative information about a living person is well-sourced, that undue weight is not given to negatives, etc. But when something is mostly negative, it's not undue weight to reflect that. That's due weight. The articles we have should be accurate and balanced. But they should not necessarily be nice or pleasant. Sometimes, we've got to cover some pretty unpleasant topics. When we can cover that in a neutral, well-sourced manner, we should do that. Even if someone doesn't like it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with this article was that it didn't just cover what she was notable for (which is all covered in the article on the scandal anyway) but also contained a lot of muckraking about her past, apparently the result of research by the defense attorneys--who in any case could hardly be regarded as reliable sources in this instance. --Tony Sidaway 20:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • " ... the result of research by the defense attorneys--who in any case could hardly be regarded as reliable sources in this instance." Well, the official report by North Carolina's Attorney General (Mr. Cooper) pretty much confirmed everything that the defense attorneys had been claiming all along; are we not to believe the official report and its findings? Duke53 | ^Talk 21:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The reliability of sources is something that can be dealt with without deleting the article. I don't think there were any such problems myself; also, major, respectable media outlets should be taken as reliable in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary. The way, the truth, and the light 22:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That's basically just not true. Pretty much everything (if not everything) was sourced to a mainstream media source. At one point court documents were the only place that her name was printed, but of course that's no longer the case. It's considered proper to call her by name everywhere except on Wikipedia, it seems. Unlearned hand 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If muck dug up gets published in a newspaper, that doesn't stop it being muck, nor does it make it reliable or balanced simply because it has been repeated by a secondary source. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Nor does your singular opinion that it's all "muck" mean anything more than that's your opinion. Unlearned hand 21:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hardly singular. administrators have access to the deleted material and I don't think many of them are thinking, "hmmm, seems balanced enough, and it's all encyclopedic." Far from it. --Tony Sidaway 22:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Consensus seems to be going against you. Unlearned hand 22:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait until it closes. BLP is pretty powerful. --Tony Sidaway 00:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:CIVIL This is getting obnoxious. - Unlearned hand 00:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the defense attorneys dug up dirt and released it to the press. How is it our obligation to "report" it? Why does this woman need an article, when everything that needs to be said about her is already in the rape case article? If she had not been involved in this case, ther would have been no biography whatsoever. Leave it as a redirect, it's pure sensationalism to report dirt about a private individual. And that is exactly what she is. Corvus cornix 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's not a private individual. See Public figure. Unlearned hand 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to agree with the proposition that she's a private individual to agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of hosting attack pieces and muckraking. --Tony Sidaway 22:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those that disagree with you would not characterize it as an attack page. The way, the truth, and the light 23:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, that constitutes their bone of contention. The facts are pretty plain, though, and are available to administrators. --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this administrator disagrees with you. AfD is the place to decide this, not amongst a cabal. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This administrator does too, Tony. If the article was problematic, stub it down to only what's sourced. But do not delete. We're not talking about a completely unsourced negative piece, which may be deleted without question or discussion. We're discussing something for which a lot of source material exists. That requires a discussion, not hitting of a button. And from what I'm seeing here, it appears there's anything but wide agreement with your position. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all I want is a redirect. Stubbing down is not necessary. Everything relevant is in the article about the scandal. We don't need the muckraking, in fact we should not have the muckraking at all. --Tony Sidaway 00:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per WP:BLP - it appears the relevant material is already in 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal and, looking at the deleted article, it clearly had major issues at the time of its departure from stage left. Orderinchaos 22:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect, obviously. We have an article on the scandal, and the only reason anyone knows her name is that event. Why would this be controversial? Friday (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The redirect was just deleted again (with an improper edit summary). Anyway, many of us think she should have her own article, just like Monica Lewinsky who's also known only for a scandal. The way, the truth, and the light 23:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Be that as it may, and regardless of the outcome of this way-too-long deleton review, a redirect for now is not harmful in any way I can see. Friday (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Monica Lewinski became a bit of a minor celebrity, this other woman did not. There are enough proper sources for the Lewinski article. Don't you see a big difference in the two situations? Friday (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's spelled 'Lewinsky'. There were reliable sources for this article. Of course there's some difference, but not (in my opinion) a relevant difference. The way, the truth, and the light 00:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A lot of these "endorse deletion" arguments are based on the idea that community consensus does not determine what is a BLP violation. That's a somewhat reasonable position to hold. But that does not mean that administrators who like to speedy delete things out of process determine what is a BLP violation, either. -23:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  That's right, community consensus isn't that much use in determining what is a Biography of living persons violation. The facts are much more important. In the context of Wikipedia, it means that an administrator can summarily delete an article that is a violation of that policy. Administrators always have discretion over deletion. Their decisions can be appealed but not simply on the basis that they didn't cross some t or dot some i. The wellbeaing of Wikipedia comes first. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I fully agree that undeleting BLP violations just so we can say process was followed is stupid. But I don't just dispute that this article was deleted through the proper channels, I dispute that it was actually a BLP violation. -Amarkov moo! 00:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The most relevant section of WP:BLP is WP:NPF. There was a pile of irrelevant stuff in this article; if that was pared down, and the shaky sources (e.g., any sources quoting the lawyers for the accused, in particular) were removed, everything that was left was already in the main article. The event is notable, none of the individuals involved are - neither the accused nor the accuser. Risker 00:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That depends on her not being a public figure, which is disputed. In any case, deleting some of that information doesn't require removing the whole article. The way, the truth, and the light 00:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  NPF says don't publicize it if other reliable secondary sources haven't. It doesn't say we have to have subjective standards about who's public and censor our content based on that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was specifically thinking of this sentence: "In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. " The number and ages of her children are not relevant to her notability. Her grade point average is not relevant. Her previous employment and education history is not relevant. The names of her prescription drugs are not relevant. The sources are used in such a way to extract only the salacious information, while excluding information that contradicts other edits to the article; one source quotes the manager of the club saying she worked only three nights in March (none before the incident), and another source quotes the manager as saying they had to drag her out of the club, possibly causing her "injuries," a few nights before the incident - but only the "dragging her out" bit is included in the article. That makes the article a NPOV problem as well, I suppose. Risker 00:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the initial media coverage portrayed her as a "single mother and honor student", the information about her children and education is entirely relevant. The stuff about her medications I would take out. And pretty much everything that is more appropriate for the main article should either be deleted or moved there. You'll be left with a much shorter article, but I think a better one. - Unlearned hand 00:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh heavens. Wasn't that back when the newspapers were following the customary practice of not using the name of the accuser? What if they had published her home address and telephone number as well? Wikipedia is not obliged to include information in its articles just because a reliable source used it. Did either her parenthood status or her studentship have anything to do with the incident? That would be a valid reason to include this information, but someone else publishing it first isn't. Risker 01:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those facts shaped the initial media coverage of the incident - and still does to this day for some people who just can't let go of the idea that the whole thing never happened. So yes, they are relevant, whereas things like her phone number or home address (or whatever drugs she is taking that don't have anything to do with how apparently drugged-up she was when she showed up to "perform") would not be. - Unlearned hand 01:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All the citations in the article were to reliable secondary sources. And NPF is precisely about 'non-public figures'. The way, the truth, and the light 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure that I agree, but I could be talked into it. (Until you can point me to something the defense lawyers have said that turned out to be untrue, I would contest "sources quoting the lawyers" as "shaky" - the lawyers aren't as free to lie as you seem to think they are, which is one of the reasons Mike Nifong will be disbarred in a few weeks.) However, none of that changes the fact that this deletion was done in a totally improper fashion and in violation of correct procedures. - Unlearned hand 00:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're saying we have to have some muckraking on Wikipedia because some secondary source has published it, you're onto a loser. That's the very thing that the Biographies of living persons policy is there to stop. --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If published in reliable secondary sources isn't a standard for inclusion, what is?Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, it's an unreasonable position to hold because it's an untrue position, and should be discounted accordingly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The contents of the deleted article are available to all administrators. The facts, not a vote misnamed "consensus", determine what is or is not a BLP violation. --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the facts quite clearly show that it isn't. But I guess if you keeping saying that it was often enough, maybe you'll convince someone. Very GordonWatts, actually. - Unlearned hand 00:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure we need that. I'm aware Tony Sidaway feels strongly his position is correct, and he's entitled to that. But the reason I don't go right over there and undelete is because I'm willing to see the discussion first. I'm quite convinced I'm correct, too. What we do when well-meaning people, who all have good reasons to believe they are correct, disagree, is to have a discussion. What we should not do is simply go take an action which will clearly be controversial and cause more problems than it solves. And I do disagree that "It's a BLP problem!" requires no more than that as a rationale, it doesn't become true through frequent enough repitition. As far as I can see from looking at the deleted article, all negative or potentially controversial content was sourced, and to pretty reliable sources, not blogs or the like. Even if I overlooked some unsourced content, that content should have been removed, not the whole thing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment After thousands of words on this subject, Risker is the only one who apparently supports the deletion of this article who has actually identified specific issues with the article as it was immediately prior to its deletion. We have had admins cite BLP over and over again, without actually reading the damn guideline. We have had people assert that she is a private figure, which is open to dispute. We have had people cite "Undue weight" while focusing on things that are not particularly offensive (such as her schooling and her prior service in the Navy). Thank you, Risker. Now we have something to work with when this article is restored. Horologium talk - contrib 02:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion without prejudice to later recreation of an article that isn't utter garbage. I've read the deleted article. As Risker says, "the sources are used in such a way to extract only the salacious information, while excluding information that contradicts other edits to the article." As written immediately before the redirect, the article is so poisonous that it is beyond salvaging; we shouldn't even have material of this nature in the article history, frankly. From that perspective, I support deletion. That being said, there is no philosophical probelm with an article on this individual existing. I suggest that if someone wants such an article to exist they create a clean, properly sourced, non-vile version in their userspace and then get opinions from WP:BLP savvy individuals before proposing to move it back into place. Nandesuka 10:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony Sidaway, who is the only person here to cite the policy without actually reading it, is not an administrator. Uncle G 10:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Can I just clarify here? We have an article at 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal, which exists largely to put the boot into this person, but it appears to be asserted that we should also have an article on this individual, presumably because the Duke article does not put the boot in firmly enough or something. Is that what people are arguing for? Two articles when there is only one conept, and that documented only dfue to the obsessive interest of the Duke camp? Guy (Help!) 10:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I am an administrator, and I agree with David Gerard (edit), Tony Sidaway (edit), Friday (edit), Thebainer (edit), Crotalus horridus, Radiant!, Hahnchen, W.marsh, InkSplotch, Seraphimblade, and Orderinchaos, all of whom think that there should simply be a redirect here. Deletion review isn't the correct venue to decide this. But, conversely, neither is AFD. Redirection is not deletion, and does not involve the use of administrator tools. It's a normal editorial action that any editor, even one without an account, posesses the tools to enact. At this point, it appears that there are a quite a few editors who favour doing that, and several who have actually done it.

  The reason that this should be a redirect has actually been articulated by Phil Sandifer and Risker above, and is actually a principle that we should consider elaborating and adopting, because it is one that a lot of editors appear to be progressing towards:

  Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. That a person receives a namecheck in a larger article about a subject that involves that person does not automatically warrant a redlink, or a biographical article for that person. We should not present things in a way that the sources do not. If sources for biographical information only cover the person in the context of something else (such as an event or a court case), and are not wholly separable from sources for that something else, then there should not be a biographical article in Wikipedia separate from an article on the something else. Court cases, crimes, conflicts, and controversies, for examples, should be presented as unified articles that involve all sides, not as individual articles, pretending to be biographies, that present each of the sides separately.

  There's an unfortunate tendency of many editors to do exactly what this principle proscribes, putting everything into biographies, as exemplified by the recent attempt by quite a few editors to present information about the Virginia Tech shootings as if it were a biography of one of the journalists who reported it. That is wrong, and not what we should be doing here. Several editors have touched upon our Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy. That policy says that we should strictly apply our content policies to biographical content. One of our content policies is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that is the problem at hand here. An article that takes the account of an event, such as the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal, strips off everything that isn't related to one of the participants in that event, and presents that partial account of the event as a separate purported biography of that individual, is by that very process one-sided. One-sided articles are not neutral. (It can also be argued that since it presents a subject in a context that the sources do not, it is original research, a novel synthesis of data that isn't the way that the sources synthesize and present those data.) As I did at Glasgow Ice Cream Wars, we should present such events in articles that discuss all participants and the entire event/incident/case, not present them piecemeal spread across multiple biographies of the people involved, requiring readers to stitch several one-sided accounts together. The names of the people, being subordinate subjects discussed within the context of the event, should redirect to the article on the event, per Wikipedia:Redirect (incorporating them as name disambiguation list items in disambiguation articles if they would overlap other redirects or articles, per Wikipedia:Disambiguation). We should only break out biographical articles if it is possible to write neutral articles, that are not one-sided, and that actually are biographies of a person's life and works.

  Looking at the purported biographical article as written, which is almost wholly a subset of the article on the event, duplicating in large part what the latter says, as both Phil Sandifer and Risker have noted, this principle seems to apply here. There is not a single cited source that discusses this person separately from coverage of the case. (Most of them even have "Duke case" in their titles. Even those few that don't are under a "Duke Lacrosse Controversy" heading or similar. Again, note the similarity to the way that the sources cover the Glasgow Ice Cream Wars case — especially The Scotsman's coverage. The Dartmouth Murders are covered by sources in this way, too.) This should be a redirect, therefore. Several editors have exercised ordinary editorial tools to do this. It wasn't necessary to use the delete button. But I can understand why David Gerard might perhaps have thought that in light of this edit (note the edit summary), removing the prior history would prevent people from reverting on spurious grounds of "vandalism". However, that can equally well be done with a group of editors who are willing to redirect the article and make it stick via use of ordinary editing tools and talk pages. It appears, from the number of editors who want a redirect and who have actually redirected the article, that such a group exists. Uncle G 10:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted Forest Water Safari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Unnecessary deletion I created this page and found it deleted; I did not enter enough information initially, so I went back and found non-partisan sources and generated detailed information about the topic. I found that the page had been repeatedly deleted by user Mhking, who stated that I did not cite third-party sources. Although my page did cite third-party sources, I cited to Mhking other pages (such as Six Flags Theme Park) that do not cite sources, but were warned rather than deleted. I am from central new york and have no vested interest in Enchanted Forest, but wish to participate in Wikipedia in a meaningful manner. I would like the opportunity to finish the page and provide useful information about this and other topics. Thank you for your time. Jjm10 01:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment why not just re-create the article? -N 01:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response He has tried to re-create and it sources. It was suggested that he come to request deletion review. Discussion here. Uncle uncle uncle 04:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: on a purely-procedural note, Mhking (talk · contribs) tagged this with ((db-repost)) here: I see no sign of any deletion discussion. Oops much? —Phil | Talk 06:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]