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

This article was deleted (correctly and fairly) in December 2007 because the rapper in question did not have any notability. However, he recently released a single "Buzzin'" that entered the national charts in the US (a source is provided in the article if needed). This automatically grants him notability under the current guidelines for music. The admin who requested the deletion has since retired from Wikipedia, so I bring it before you guys. Thanks. Teemu08 (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore article and Update with news of the charting single. Clear-cut case. Chubbles (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt and allow rewrite. There were a couple of deletions of this article in June 2008 because the text had been taken directly from the subject's record company's website at [1]; the versions from June 2008 should not be restored. The December 2007 versions of the article don't appear to be copyright violations as far as I can tell and can be restored if desired. However, the article would need a rewrite in any case, because since December, Shwayze has hit the Billboard Hot 100 for the first time, albeit not very high on the chart. More distinctively, he is the focus of an MTV reality television series which will debut later this month in both the U.S. and Canada. [2] [3] He has also received more news coverage. [4] [5] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Unprotect to allow rewrite. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Parish Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The Concensus was to keep but it was deleated! It has been noted in the boston globe and had proper sources. What Gives? CelesJalee (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I voted to !delete, and was disappointed to find that deletion did not have consensus; I am therefore puzzled why it was concluded that it did. The key question, not adequately discussed, is whether the Science Park made it notable. The only extended comment on that gave the reason " I am asking that evidence be presented that the school or the district owns the park" -- but that the park was located there would probably be enough. Notability of elementary schools is so rare that this discussion did not attract the necessary interest. DGG (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Uh, if there was a consensus to move, it should have been closed as move not delete. --Rividian (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. There was no consensus to move. There was also no consensus to delete, so I don't think the AfD was closed properly. There apparently was doubt about the ownership of the science park, but it is certainly affiliated with the school. See this Boston Globe article and this PTO Today article. If the science park is the school's playground, it would be best to have an article about the school including its playground rather than just the playground alone. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I am more than willing to work on furrthing the artice but this month I am realy busy with work so I wanted to just make sure that the article got atlest reinsated as there was more KEEP then MOVE or DELEATE and it meet's the notibility requirments. Is there something that I am missing here? I know I am new but the concept seams relitivly simple. Correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CelesJalee (talk • contribs) 03:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so simple, no. AfD is not a vote, though some people treat it as such. The closing admin is supposed to weigh the arguments given, with more weight given to those whose arguments are based on Wikipedia's policies & guidelines. The closing admin did not believe the school met the notability guideline. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why? Stifle (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's a recommended option, not a requirement. Sometimes it can be better to list things here and get visibility and a diversity of suggestions--and that seems to be in fact the case for this article. Good choice, I think. DGG (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also recommended and not a requirement that you have some experience in Wikipedia before making an RFA, but you don't see very many people taking that into account. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why is if you go to deleaters talk page he says that he wiil not negotiate. nice question though CelesJalee (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed that. Thanks. Overturn and close as no consensus, as there was none. I'm not opposed to a relist. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• School articles are useful when consulting info about a celebrity, so we'd better recover this article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? That makes no sense. No celebrity has been linked to this school, and that would probably not confer notability anyway. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as closer - TerriersFan had already asked me about this on my talk page - my response was "show me a reference that confirms the science park is a part of the school and I'll undelete the article" Note this picture shows it's a community science park, something which shows everyone commenting here has either ignored the AFD discussion, or not done their research. Neıl ☄ 11:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Overturn Was built by the PTO of the school (per article) and lots of indications that it is the school's park in the article cited by Neil. I expected it to close as defaulting to keep, but agree how to close it wasn't clear. Hobit (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. If the reason for deletion was that the science park in the grounds fo the school, and mentioned in the article, was worth an article but the school wasn't, then the encyclopedia is better served by simply moving the article and refocussing the content. Deletion of the article for this reason was questionable and ignores our deletion policy, which states: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." . --Jenny 22:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The AfD included nothing that uncovered notability. The park is not enough. The AfD was properly handled. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Coment The following Link Clears Up all issues surounding the school owning the park. CelesJalee (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I Created a New Article Just about the park so I guess Were done here. CelesJalee (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Joseph Didier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)

Before coming here, I did ask the deleting administrator to reconsider but the person would not change his/her mind.

I must preface these comments by noting that I do not accuse the deleting administrator of being discourteous or unprofessional. In fact, I only reluctantly ask for this review because I don't want to make the deleting administrator mad. I will also limit comments only to procedural error and not re-argue points for keep. Likewise, those who follow me and who voted for deletion (some of whom admit it was because they were following me) should refrain from re-arguing their ideas.
With these disclaimers mentioned, I ask for deletion review because of procedural errors.
1. The major procedural error is that there was no concensus. With no consensus, the default is to keep. This is settled and standard Wikipedia procedure.
2. The second procedure error is that the deleting administrator is a self-avowed deletionist. Therefore, it is highly questionable to whether the deletionist starts from a neutral standpoint. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shereth "I call myself a deletionist" and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shereth/Deletionism "devotion to the philosophy of deletion" The AFD was doomed to be a delete from the start because of this administrator.
3. The cries of non-notability were simply cries often with no justification. The explanations about notability, in contrast, were rooted in fact. Fact that the murder is still covered in the news 35 years after it happened, that there are multiple sources of initial coverage, that even the deletion debate was covered in the news (because the event is so notable - THIS IS NEW INFORMATION), and because in a city of 150,000, there were 54,000 written protests and petitions against the murders release - something that has never been seen, thus making it without question the kidnapping/murder of the century for the region.
4. Even after the AFD ended, a staff member of the state Attorney's Office wrote a comment on my user page supporting the article. This non-anonymous writing speaks for itself in a wikipedia world where everyone else hides behind anonymity.
Please review this request and undelete the article because when there is no consensus, the default is to keep. About 1/3 of the vote was keep and many of the rest did not say anything other than to wrongly say it's not notable. Most murders are not notable but this one is. Presumptive (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC) fixed typo in article name GRBerry 02:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Being a "deletionist" isn't a procedural error. Points three and four have absolutely zero bearing on this debate. Protonk (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Edit: the second half of point three. Protonk (talk)[reply]
• Endorse Consensus to delete or not delete something comes when there isn't a clear policy or guideline problem with the article. If something is borderline but consensus is that it should be deleted, then we delete it. If something violates a policy or guideline and there isn't an otherwise compelling reason to keep it, it gets deleted. If a "no consensus" result could impact the outcome of a process appealing to policy then we would rarely delete anything that failed to comply with policy. The expectation is that the policy be enforced and occasionally the threat of deletion is the stick used to enforce it. The admin clearly explain his (her?) reasoning and CLEARLY delineated that the decision stemmed from the guidelines. I don't see the problem? I can't see the article but I have a hard time visualising an admin deleting an article with perfectly good sources in good faith. Protonk (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can say in good faith that there were good sources and sources that ranged from 1975, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, etc. So "I have a hard time visualising an admin deleting an article with perfectly good sources in good faith" is a problem for DRV because there are good sources and the article was deleted. Presumptive (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I read the article. Sourcing seems to all be rockford news articles about a murder and subsequent capture of the murderer. Although the time difference is unusual, it is neither unprecedented nor exceedingly rare. Seems to be to be a case of Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS as well. Protonk (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse -- though there were reasonable points on either side, rough consensus favored deletion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closing administrator (naturally), for the reasons outlined in the close. I would also like to express that I am rather peeved that the nominator is failing to assume good faith in my closure (assumption that it was doomed from the get-go), peeved that the nominator is mischaracterizing statements on my user page/subpages, and finally, that the nominator failed to notify me of this DRV filing contesting my closure. Shereth 08:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I've gone ahead and performed a history-only undeletion for the sake of transparency. Shereth 08:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not notifying you. I never did a DRV before. Since you are voting so am I.Presumptive (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Biggest reason is that a lack of consensus is a default to keep. Also because many of the deletionists in the AFD claimed non-notability without giving evidence that it wasn't N. Notability is not being "well known" otherwise 80% of WP articles would be deleted (press "random article" on the left). Basically, lack of consensus is default to keep / which will result in article improvement over time, a plus for WPPresumptive (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The appeal grounds broadly restate the original keep arguments, the only exception being the claim that there was no consensus, however this disregards that AFD is not a vote. The keep arguments were generally weak, and in several cases likely the result of fairly blatant canvassing, something which almost certainly solicited nom.'s item #4 (see here nb. the ad has been slightly amended since being first posted, presumably in response to concerns in the original AFD). Note that prior to this AFD a similar article by the same editor had already been deleted twice, once under a slightly different title by AFD and again under this one via speedy as a copyvio, resulting in the early termination of that AFD discussion. Debate 木 08:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inaccurate description, for example "Once under a slightly different title" - article was about person, not murder, which is often not allowed and text of article was different. Presumptive (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as "no consensus" to delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The additional sources given in the AfD were either mistaken (an article about a programmer with the same last name as the deceased), or about the protesters wanting to keep the perpetrator in jail. That's only tangential to the murder article, and does not show notability for the murder itself. As to the statements: 1) Consensus does not mean a unanimous opinion. None of the Keep comments stood up against the point that the murder did not meet WP:N. 2) is irrelevant; 3) is not germane to notability, as the articles given are about the protesters, not the murder; 4) somebody commenting on your Talk page is no more relevant than a blogpost. In all, there's no procedural issue here for DRV to overturn. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, those who want delete simply say "not notable" but do not explain why. Just saying it is not notable does not make it not notable. WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." then defines the terms. The topic has received significant coverage over many years, it has been covered in reliable sources, the sources are independent of the Didier family, so it is notable. Even more are the unusual coverage decades after the fact and the huge public interest (over 50,000 writing protest letters or petitions in a city of about 75,000 adults) Presumptive (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking us to prove a negative. How do we prove it is not notable? Rather, there is not enough substantial coverage to show that it is a notable event. As I pointed out, most of the coverage given is about the protesting families, tangential to the murder itself. Protest letters aren't any more relevant than Google hits, as people will sign petitions for damn near anything. Finally, this is not AfD 2. It's not the place to rehash your previous argument. If you can show a substantial procedural problem with the close, please do so. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? OK, I'm really lost here. There are a number (10?) of articles in two newspapers about the murder. That there are more letters about the murder than news articles doesn't magically make this not notable. And it's not proving a negative. WP:N is really really clear about what constitutes notability. This plainly has multiple independent reliable sources. Can you provide a policy or guideline that indicates this article should not be here? The procedural error was that nearly all !votes for delete cited WP:N or generic notability without explanation as to how the independent RS that exist aren't enough. Those !votes should have been discounted by the closer. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do not think there is real consensus about articles of this sort. At the AfD, I did not !vote, but asked if there was information that it was considered notable outside the immediate area, and this was not supplied--the few links given showed noting of the sort. Personally, I think that murders with any degree of significance otherwise--including community outrage, or rape-murder of children, or more than on victim be considered notable enough for WP. There is understandable general interest in such crimes, as Dr. Johnson said two centuries ago, "murder is a mighty strong fact". Popularity is not the same as notability-- not-popular things can be notable also, but anything of great popular interest is worth covering in a comprehensive non-paper encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Overturn is the result from DGG's "comment"? Presumptive (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I've unbolded the "overturn" as DGG did not "vote" to overturn (nor to endorse) and he is well aware of the structure of discussions here — if he intended to "vote" overturn, he would have done so, and Presumptive's listing of the article here implies he disagrees with the deletion, so he doesn't get a second "vote". Stifle (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Firstly, there seemed to be a lack of consensus in the AfD and should have been kept on that basis. Secondly, WP:N and WP:V are met. That this is "local" in some sense is quite an odd reading, and IMO, not relevant. The NOTNEWS is the one delete argument that I think makes sense. However, given the long-term coverage of the murders shown in the article I think this is more "history" than "news". Finally, I've personally heard people outside of the area talk about this murder in the last 5 years. While my experience doesn't mean much, it was the case that I was the only one there who didn't know about it. (Everyone of us grew up in the suburbs of Chicago). Hobit (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I think the implicit point is that, were it historical, a historian would have written about it. If we take a collection of newspaper articles on an event and call it historical, aren't we making a claim that isn't supported by the published material? Protonk (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that collection runs over, say 100 years, I'd hope you agree it is clearly historical. I'd say very few news stories see play after 20 years and only those that are significant and notable. Hobit (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC

I assume Protonk would say that us deciding that would constitute original research, the numbers are ones you've apparently plucked out of the air and that you believe are correct. The question is do reliable sources consider this historical, not do wikipedia editors consider it so. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local festivals are covered in local press, as are local businesses. I can't really assume that a business that gets a piece every few years in the local rag is historical. the whole basis for the WP:N/WP:OR policies (ok, N is a guideline) is that we let someone else make that assertion in a published work before we do. This means that we lose a lot of things we would otherwise like to have. Our coverage gets focused on things that media and scholar have studied (even the pokemon test doesn't work here, pokemon gets HUGE coverage from editors but has alos received some coverage in the press. Compare pokemon to warhammer 40k and you'll see the difference in press coverage). But the policies and guidelines that constrain us represent a "second best" solution. We can't solve the problem of deciding what to include in a neutral and accurate fashion without restricting the ability to include items and hiring trained editors for review. So, in order to maintain the basic idea of wikipedia (free, anyone can edit), we make hard compromises on inclusion of content. Sometimes that compromise seems like a kick in the teeth. But until we come up with a better compromise that lets us maintain the 5 pillars, we have to work with it. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure I get your point here at all. First of all, choosing what to cover isn't going to run afoul of WP:NOR. That's part of the editorial decision we always make when inclusion is questionable. As this plainly meets WP:N (plenty of secondary sources) a plain reading of the notability guidelines mean we keep it. But then we add NOTNEWS. That says "Articles should not be about events that have strictly passing significance and interest. Events which only garner transitory attention do not merit encyclopedic articles,...". I'm fairly certain that a news story spanning decades isn't transitory. Now it may not meet the "clear keep" criteria spelled out in NOTNEWS, but it also doesn't meet the "clear delete" case. WP:LOCAL doesn't even vaguely apply as it is about places (and it's an essay anyways). Hobit (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain. The "big three" policies are NPOV/V/NOR. enforcing these at the line-by-line level (individual items within an article) requires no more than consistent application of those three policies. For example, I can see a contentious claim and demand a reliable source for it. Likewise I can see a claim not made by the sourcing and remove it. Enforcing these policies at the article level is more difficult. Let's pretend we wanted 100% enforcement of these policies without adding another policy or guideline (so an alternate universe without WP:N). We would have to vet individual articles at the point of creation to ensure that the article itself did not constitute undue weight, original research or an unverfiable claim. Let's take something like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cellular_learning_automaton as an example. How do we know, as amateurs, whether or not the topic is getting the coverage it deserves? Should we wait until the CS project comes by and makes sense of it? The answer, should we return to the "big three" and the "five pillars" (free, anyone can edit), is no. We can't rely on specialist interpretation or special knowledge to decide whether or not to keep articles and what length to make them. In order to apply that idea universally we would need to hire hundreds of "expert" editors whose credentials have been vetted and who (presumably) would wield greater sway in arguments.

WP:N was created as a "second best" solution (that article is a mess, but the idea is clear) to this problem. We create a "somewhat" arbitrary standard for inclusion that offloads that problem to third parties. This allows us to include articles based on this guideline and remain inside the "big three". I know WP:N isn't the only argument I made, but I hopes this helps to explain why I defended it as I did.

In this case, declaring an event "historical" without a history to back that up seems to be skirting the WP:OR line. As for WP:NOTNEWS, we aren't making the "clear delete" case. In this DRV, we are arguing that that keep votes made a persuasive case on the basis of policy and guidelines. The DRV itself isn't AFD2, so the issue is about the process, not the basic arguments. Protonk (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My arguments about this are below. The basic argument is that WP:N is clearly met because there are multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage. The NOTNEWS arguments are valid arguments (if wrong IMO), but those were not the main arguments at the AfD. Instead it was WP:JNN. Again, see below for my detailed comments about the AFD. Hobit (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the response. I was mostly trying to articulate a response to the question above. As for WP:AADD, I take it or leave it. Some of the sections there are really useful, but WP:JNN isn't all that helpful. It sounds like it should be compelling, but it runs into problems quickly. Most methods of arguing for/against notability (or any other guideline/policy without its own bright line) can be just as tautological even if they have more words. In other words, if I said "it isn't notable because it doesn't---insert verbiage from WP:N---", that isn't any different from "delete, not notable". Same with a keep argument. I still think that the closure was more or less correct, but you guys have shown that you have a much better case than I originally thought you had. Protonk (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The closing admin correctly interpreted consensus here. Nsk92 (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AFD is not a vote. There was a clear policy-based consensus to delete which was correctly interpreted by closing admin. Detailed closing rationale demonstrates that this was not a drive-by closure. nancy ^(talk) 06:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Protonk. I also criticise Presumptive's poisoning of the well by point 2 of the argument above, which is very poor form. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There wasn't a clear consensus, and it seems alright to have this article hosted here. We are trying to meet the 3 million articles mark some day soon, right? In our lifetime. Anyways... there wasn't a consensus. Try again.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I can't see a single valid keep argument anywhere in that AfD, let alone any kind of consensus. – iridescent 16:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Therefore, default to keep. I agree, there is no consensus for keep. There is a lack of consensus, which is supposed to be a default to keep. This also helps Wikipedia because you can bet that I will and others probably will work on the article to make it better. After about 1-2 days after the AFD, I stopped all work to prevent wasted effort. Presumptive (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I have once again unbolded Presumptive's first few words. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse DRV is not a forum for a second AfD. --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no-consensus I wanted to see other arguments first before !voting, but on balance i think that at present there is not a real consensus for the deletion of this and similar articles. DGG (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - closing admin correctly applied policy and gave a thoughtful and detailed rationale. There were practically no policy-based keep arguments presented. Nandesuka (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you explain what part of WP:N the closer is claiming isn't met? I can't figure it out from what was written. I've no doubt the closer spent serious time thinking about the close and writing the closing remarks, but I'm not seeing a policy-based reason for deletion other than not meeting WP:N, which seems to be contradicted by the existence of a large number of reliable sources. Hobit (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly endorse deletion. Not only did the AfD have the proper outcome, as there was plenty of consensus to delete, but User:Presumptive repeatedly tried to "game the system" in many ways, foremost among them posting an ad on another site to try to get non-Wikipedians to vote on the AfD (violating WP:CANVASS). He also copied and pasted selected comments from the first AfD (the one that resulted in speedy deletion for copyvio), only those which supported his position. Not only do I endorse deletion, I also believe Pesumptive should be blocked for his repeated flaunting of Wikipedia policy. He is obviously on a mission to make sure this murder somehow gets on Wikipedia, as part of an apparent campaign ot make sure the murderer never gets parole. As wel-meaning as that might be, it has absolutely no place at Wikipedia. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: Once again, Presumptive is showing tendencies to strong-arm this process into a defualt to keep the article. This action again shows his repeated tendency to manipulate Wikipedia policies to fit his agenda, usethe DRV process as yet another AfD procedure, and generally act in bad faith. He complaians about those who "don't like me and follow me around," but his disruptive actions bring attention to him that merits a watchful eye on everything he does. Please ignore his requests to force this into default-to-keep, maintain that article's status as deleted, and temporary block Presumptive for his disruptive and bad-faith actions. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I don't know what debate people were looking at when they say there was no real consensus here -- in the one I looked at, those favoring keep were vocal but significantly outnumbered. Furthermore, the arguments for deletion are perfectly acceptable under policy. The arguments to keep were also reasonable... and in a situation like that, we have to go with the majority when there's a sizable one. This is consensus. That doesn't mean everyone agrees: it means the outcome is clearly the best one and we should abide by it. Mangojuice^talk 14:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Most of the delete !votes were basically A) "not notable" or B) "local". As it meets WP:N, it is notable for purposes of this discussion. And I'm unaware of a policy or guideline that limits inclusion due to the local nature of an event. So (assuming I'm right about those two facts) the majority of the !votes for deletion weren't grounded in policy, putting this (in my reading) closer to keep than delete. Hobit (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to be crystal clear, WP:N states: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.. I don't see how this one doesn't qualify. Hobit (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is not significant coverage of the murder itself. There is significant coverage of the protests to keep the convicted murderer in jail. That's the difference here. And protests on this level are a dime-a-dozen. There's really nothing here that shows any difference from any murder or protest that goes on every day in the US. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the protests about the murder are, about the murder and goes to the notability of the murder. But even if that isn't so, I don't buy that the protests are not notable because they are a dime-a-dozen. I'm unaware of anything in the notability guidelines that reflects that. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." It seems the protests at least have received significant coverage. And if you don't think the murder did back in 75 you'd be wrong. I can't imaging that the Chicago papers didn't have something at that time: it entered the realm of urban lore for many of my peers. Do their on-line archives go back that far?Hobit (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is claimed that the following headlines existed at the time:

• Chicago Tribune — Fear missing youth victim of ‘ritual'
• Chicago Tribune — A muffled shriek then he was gone
• Chicago Tribune — Footprints, muffled cry clues in search for Rockford boy
• Chicago Daily News — Frantic plea for Rockford boy

These from http://www.comportone.com/cpo/crime/articles/didier.htm. Those seem to establish notability if accurate. Hobit (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As awful as it sounds, enough murders happen to probably not be notable. Case in point: The Homicide Report is a blog from the LA Times cataloguing every murder in LA county. there are 1-3 every day. Most will go unsolved. Protonk (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most are also not reported on 35 years later like this one. Most do not get such public outcry that is reported every year or so. Most murders are not as notable as the Didier kidnapping/murder. Presumptive (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted at the AfD, there were 16 stories in the Chicago Tribune on this murder from March 5 to October 28, 1975. So, my guess is that this was one of if not the most notorious murders in the Chicago area at the time.John Z (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to Protonk, can you provide a reason grounded in policy or guidelines which indicate this is not notable? If it means WP:N, it's notable per our guidelines unless something else says otherwise. I've yet to hear a policy argument for delete. I find that a bit frustrating as it makes it impossible to actually have a discussion if one side just says "not notable" without reference to what makes it not notable (lots of something occurring doesn't make something not-notable by policy, look at WP:ATHLETE for example). Hobit (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This DRV is far longer than most. Unlike many DRV's there is even a lack of consensus on the alleged lack of conensus of the AFD. So I believe it is a default to keep. Presumptive (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a DRV that fails to reach consensus within 2 days is unheard of. Look back a few days. the Cheshire Cat DRV? The Nucular DRV? This is longer than most DRV's because most aren't controversial (prods, speedies, etc). But the story isn't in the average length, which will be low. The story is in the average length of strongly contested DRV's. Just as a word of advice, it was a party foul to accuse the closing admin of being a deletionist. If you get into this kind of situation again, it is better to leave that unsaid. Contributors who feel strongly about the inclusionist/deletionist split will make their own conclusions. those who don't won't assume that you are making conclusions. No one will get angry. Protonk (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right that I should not have called the deleting administrator a deletionist. If anything was said (which even that is debatable), it might have been better to merely link the deleting administrator's own edit which he/she calls him/herself a deletionist and that they claim devotion to the philosophy of deletion. Presumptive (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you get my point. For one, we have given the admin the tools for a reason. If we presume that he will misuse them in order to further an editorial agenda, then we should not have granted them the tools. to accuse an admin of misusing his tools in order to advance an editorial agenda is a pretty big thing. THAT is the problem. not that you were too blunt about it. We aren't stupid. Linking the diffs to the admin saying "RAWR, I hate articles" in your DRV to have his decision overturned is the same thing as saying "Admin X is a deletionist and used that philosophy to adjudicate a debate". Am I clear? Protonk (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention if you'd bothered actually reading my essay rather than just taking comments out of context, you'd realize that I do not claim "devotion to the philosophy of deletion", I was merely quoting a definition of the word. The whole point of my essay was to show that being a self-avowed "deletionist" does not mean the same thing for different people, a point which seems to have completely evaded you. Shereth 15:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Essentially the commentary in this DRV to date appears to have largely centred on whether consensus in the original AFD was achieved, with some additional commentary rehashing the AFD debate, particularly concerning whether the article meets the criteria for notability. Personally, I don't want to rehash the notability arguments from the AFD, which were well covered in that forum. In terms of consensus, however, I would strongly suggest that the consensus argument should be wholly discounted here because the well has been poisoned by blatant canvassing by the nom. To do otherwise would essentially be to endorse canvassing, and thereby undermine Wikipedia's guidelines against the practice, which while not policy, nonetheless have formal status. We'll never know exactly how many editors making the keep argument were attracted to the debate precisely because of the nom's canvassing. Nor will we know how many more delete arguments might have been attracted if those arguing to delete had agressively engaged in canvassing as well. Had those arguing to delete engaged in active canvassing the apparent 'lack of consensus' may well have evaporated very quickly. Consequently, it is in my view important for this DRV to consider whether upholding this appeal based on lack of consensus in effect rewards canvassing, and if so, whether that is a precedent we're comfortable endorsing. Debate 木 04:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were no canvassing votes. There were no SPA, which would be a sign of an outside person coming to WP. On the other hand, there are people who dislike me and followed me around, thus inflating the delete/endorse count. What we really need is for comparison consideration. WPedians will bring up "other crap exists" but that is the key to consistency. Multiple articles should be considered together. This should be the new policy of WP. Presumptive (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no-consensus - The close stated that the article was deleted because there was agreement that it was "not inclusion worthy". That is not a valid basis to delete an article and the close claim that Wikipedia's existing notability guidelines are inadequate to handle such a topic is odd statement since the deletion debate should have been decided on policy, not guidelines. The use of subjective opinions and the failure to discuss policy shows that there was not a real consensus for the deletion of this article. GregManninLB (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question, I assume your final statement that there was real consensus for the deletion of this article is a typo? Otherwise it seems to contradict your opinion to overturn. Shereth 15:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. Fixed and added the "to no consensus" to my !vote. GregManninLB (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Nothing has come to light through the two (or was is three) AfDs and incarnations of this article that in anyway show that this was the incorrect outcome. There was no press about this crime outside of the region, and if we decide that every murder that receives significant local coverage is valid for this encyclopedia then we need to rewrite WP:NOTABILITY to express that. As to there being "no consensus", administrators are tasked with not just counting !votes but with weighing the substance of the arguments that went along with the votes. The closing administrator judged the arguments for deletion as more substantive and sound. AniMate 21:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I think you need to rewrite WP:N to express that this isn't notable. I'd like to hear what part of WP:N you think isn't met. People seem to think that being local (if half a state covering 8-10 million people can be considered local) is someplace in WP:N. In fact if this delete gets upheld, I'm going to propose that change in WP:N. Right now there is no policy or guideline this article is in violation of (at least that I can find). I think we either need to keep articles like this OR change the guidelines. Hobit (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Close, but ultimately I think a good call by the closing admin, who lays out the rationale well. This is not AfD pt.2 Eusebeus (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD in detail

I'm probably taking this DRV a little too seriously, but I'm really frustrated by the "endorse" !votes here. The basic reason for the DRV (in my opinion) is that the subject clearly meets the letter of WP:N "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." As there are a number of articles on-line from 1975 about the murder ([6], [7], [8], [9]), a large number in the Chicago Tribune from the same time period (not on-line not free [10]: "Fear missing youth victim of ‘ritual', "A muffled shriek then he was gone", "Footprints, muffled cry clues in search for Rockford boy", "Frantic plea for Rockford boy"), one on-line from 2001 about how the murder changed Rockford (city of >100,000) [11], and another 8 or so on-line about the recent protests involving the murders (for example: [12], [13]) the subject meets WP:N beyond any shadow of a doubt. The coverage is significant, from RSS, and are independent.

So if people want to argue that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia they need to cite something other than WP:N or Just not notable. Or at least explain what part of WP:N isn't met. Let's walk the delete votes:

• WP:JNN -- Realkyhick, AniMate, DCEdwards, ukexpat, Helmsb
• Fails WP:N with no explanation -- Masterpiece2000
• WP:JNN, WP:SOMETHINGELSE -- Nyttend,
• WP:NOT#NEWS (mistakenly thought all articles from the same time period, didn't change !vote, apparently thought still had NOTNEWS problems) -- Nsk92
• Referred to previous discussion on the notablity of murders -- iridescent
• Invoked local as a reason for non-notability -- nancy, Seattlehawk94
• WP:JNN and NOTNEWS -- Ave Ceasar
• LOCAL and NOTNEWS -- LonelyBeacon, SesquipedalianVerbiage

The first three sets should be tossed out. They give no valid reason for deletion. Next, the "local" problem isn't a part of any policy or guideline that I know of (other than WP:LOCAL which is about places). NOTNEWS is however a policy/guideline based reason to delete (if mistaken in its application here IMO). And finally that something else doesn't exist isn't a valid reason for deletion. That leaves 5 !votes for deletion (7 if you think "local" has defacto power).

Even the NOT#NEWS arguments don't specify what part of NOT#NEWS they violate. With very significant coverage over 30 years, I'm just not seeing it. iridescent's cite to a previous discussion was interesting, but at least some of those murders are still in Wikipedia and there didn't seem to be consensus to delete them all.

To sum-up, there were 5 delete !votes that gave valid reasons for deletion. Those 5 didn't express what part of the policy/guideline they cited was a problem, and it isn't clear from reading those policies/guidelines. So the 5 !votes were weakly justified. That in the face of dozens of reliable sources. The AfD seems to have been closed incorrectly and should be overturned.

Hobit (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no! The only reason for this DRV is only another attempt at an an AfD, which DRV's should not be. It's just one last futile attempt by Presumptive to get this article into Wikipedia. The AfD was closed properly, with the correct outcome. Do not reduce my opinion to a mere JNN. Hobit, you are twisting my words and opinion, and I do not appreciate that one bit. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason the AfD should be overturned is that the deletion arguments were weak in the face of the dozens of RSs over 30 years. When something clearly meets WP:N, as this does, just saying "this murder isn't notable because most aren't" is really just WP:JNN as I read it. When the requirements of WP:N so wildly surpassed, you need some reason other than WP:N or your opinion of "this isn't notable" to delete. AfD shouldn't just be a nose count. It also should be about what's right per policy/guidelines. Hobit (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed analysis. My analysis is completely different. It is that there were a number of well supported/documented editors for keep in several of the AFD's. As a result, there was a lack of consensus, which is default to keep. Let's look at the larger picture. Is there harm in letting an article grow, an article that is more notable than many of the random articles when clicking that link, an article of the most notable murder/kidnapping of the area and more notable than the vast majority of murders, one that draws attention and reliable sources nearly every one of the last 5 years even though it's a 35 year old murder? No harm, indeed. And lack of consensus is suppose to be a default to keep. Presumptive (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per GregManninLB. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC) _{Unbolded and indented as user has already !voted above nancy ^(talk) 07:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

• Overturn There is sufficient lack of consensus. This means that the article should be kept unless and until Wikipedia policy changes where a lack of consensus means a deletion. Chergles (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hear, hear! Another sensible Wikipedian with sound judgment. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Samuarai, there is enough heat in this DRV already without you making it personal. Please think what your comment implies about the endorsers and consider striking it. Thanks, nancy ^(talk) 07:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]