Category:Fictional_obsessive-compulsives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache) CfD)

This is unfortunately just the latest in a series of questionable closes by Kdbank71 and one of several closes of CfDs for which the only explanation was "The result of the discussion was: delete", even where there was opposition to the close that addressed specific justifications for why the category should be retained. Multiple attempts to obtain any explanation for any of these closes was refused. As I explained at the most egregious of these CfDs, there is ample evidence of character's being described -- and defined -- as Obsessive-compulsive in reliable sources, which addresses the nominator's justification for the deletion, as well as all of the subsequent "per noms". The article "TV cop fights crime, own tics: Shalhoub is outstanding as obsessive-compulsive S.F. officer" describes Adrian Monk by his well-known defining characteristic. "Actor Tony Randall, 84, 'Odd Couple' neatnik" describes Randall as achieving his "... most enduring fame on television as Felix Unger, the obsessive-compulsive neat-freak photographer..." Frasier character Niles Crane is "diagnosed" by a professional interviewed by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as having OCD (see "Local professionals weigh in on 'Frasier'"). The article "Desperate measures", labels Desperate Housewives character Bree Van de Kamp as fitting in this category, noting "Sure, Bree is obsessive-compulsive." These are just a handful of the reliable and verifiable independent sources that I found in a brief search that are defining the characters included in this category as "Obsessive-compulsive". Thousands of other sources are available to demonstrate that this is a defining characteristic and to place these articles so listed in this category. It is likely that there's cleanup necessary for specific entries in this category that do not have any sources available to support the claim, but that is never an excuse for deleting an entire category. No original research is needed to come to the conclusion that this is a defining characteristic that belongs as a category. As the closing admin has ignored a clear argument supporting the retention of this category, has already started deleting the category despite his own request to take this to DRV, and as no policy argument was offered in the close despite multiple requests, this close is out of Wikipedia process and should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Everyone else participating in the CFD thought this category was typically non-defining and that inclusion depended upon original research, which are valid grounds for deleting a category; that Alansohn still disagrees with those arguments does not provide proper DRV grounds for overturning. Further, the sources he cites above do not prove his position, but instead illustrate the widespread colloquial usage of "obsessive-compulsive" to describe neat-freak personality types rather than to exclusively identify clinically diagnosed psychiatric disorders. Vague character traits, whose significance really depends upon intra-fiction comparisons (such as between Felix and Oscar in The Odd Couple) make a poor basis for categorization. Note also that the same category for real people was previously deleted as non-defining; closing as delete the same category for fictional characters could hardly be considered unreasonable. As a closing note, it's regrettable that Alansohn has made this personal by attacking the closer with hyperbolic rhetoric, rather than just explaining why he thought this CFD should be overturned. That the closer did not elaborate upon his close is not only consistent with applicable deletion policy, but also unnecessary in a straightforward CFD such as this one. Postdlf (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a "clinically diagnosed psychiatric disorder", this is a defining characteristic of many fictional characters used as a frequent device in print, television and movies. This is not a trait that a real-life person happens to have, it is a characteristic that has been explicitly and deliberately assigned by the fictional work's creator to define the character, and both casual viewers and the media at large have no problem in recognizing this trait and establishing it as defining, as for Adrian Monk, Felix Unger and other fictional characters. If closing a CfD in which the only justification offered is WP:OR, and multiple reliable, verifiable and independent sources for multiple characters demonstrating that the trait of being described as Obsessive-compulsive is defining and supported for individual characters can be simply ignored with a sniff and a wave of the hand, we have a real problem with the entire CfD system, not just this one out-of-process close. "Everyone else participating in the CFD thought this category was typically non-defining and that inclusion depended upon original research" ignores the multiple sources offered in rebuttal and seems to be defining consensus as a vote-counting exercise. Alansohn (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletionExcellent category for categorizing fictional characters. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DRV is solely about whether the close was a proper interpretation of the CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Here's what is there now Category:People diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder and Category:Compulsive hoarding. Would it be that hard to rename the category to something like Category:Fictional people diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder? -- Suntag ☼ 21:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As helpful as the precedent is for retaining the roughly corresponding fictional category, it's not clear that the fictional "disease" is a perfect analog of the real-world one. Nor is there any formal process by which fictional characters can be diagnosed as having obsessive-compulsive disorder. The best way to handle this fictional category is through the kinds of reliable and verifiable independent sources that have already been provided describing the character and referencing the character trait for the particular character. Alansohn (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. I see no reason to establish a "fictional" category for an existing real life category simply to differentiate it as fictional. If a viewer of an article wishes to see other examples of the content, they can receive redirection based on a real life category. If the fictional character can not be represented by the real life category for such a disorder as this, then they should not be characterized as such whether fictitious or not.--JavierMC 21:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Consensus was not clear, and the close was woefully inadequate with respect to an explanation. This should not be CfD2. Closing explanations should be complete without a need for a DRV to comprehend them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - DRV isn't CfD part deux. That said, I'm not opposed to a relisting. (Though I'm not sure what the purpose of it would be except for User:Alansohn to have another opportunity for Drama. Yes, I'm losing my good faith for his edits, especially per evidence here, and his harassment of Kbdank71 on Kbdank's talkpage - which apparently has led to a block.) - jc37 23:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There is no DSM-IV for fictional characters and while it is certainly possible to add only characters who have been listed in sources as explicitly obsessive compuslive, it is far more likely that this would serve as an editor defined and populated category. It doesn't serve a navigational function since there isn't any fundamental commonality in Wallace Shawn's dinosaur from Toy Story and Adrian Monk. One is a cop (I gather) and one is a toy dinosaur. In practice, the category (from the CfD comments) was used in a fashion that contradicted WP:OR. Protonk (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Proper policy followed, close within discretion. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Closed in accordance with policy, although a bit more detail in the closing discussion would have been useful. Risker (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I won't say the close was wrong, but there wasn't a lot of activity in that CfD (which is the norm), and I think getting some more views on this could really help. For one, in the deletion nom it was said that it violated WP:OR by using primary sources. However, primary sources are not a violation of WP:OR when "used with care". A vast number of good fictionalX categories use primary sources and would clearly survive a CfD. Similar to Hiding's view in the CfD, I think if the criteria can be better/clearly defined then this would stand a better chance.
• I'm no fan of fictional/pop-culture references about OCD. At least twice I've completely removed such a section from the OCD article itself for being excessive, filled with OR, and often being flat out false. However, there are a good number of fictional characters that are specifically stated to have OCD, and you don't have to worry about being excessive in a category (article existence pretty much determines inclusion).
• So while I'm not convinced this was a bad close, I think we could benefit from continued discussion on it. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - admin correctly interpreted the CFD and closed it appropriately. Closing admin is not required to provide a detailed explanation of each individual close so the lack of one is not a valid reason for overturning. Otto4711 (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not asking for individual detailed explanations, but a resonable explanation where consensus is less than obvious, or a link to one where a group of XfDs are collectively closed. As it stands, looking at this one CfD, the debate is unfinished and the close looks impulsive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse; I could not see any other valid closure of that CFD. Stifle (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - While I think that the outcome could have been different since there are fictional characters created to have obsessive-compulsive disorder that would meet the DSM, I cannot see any other valid closure of that CFD. -- Suntag ☼ 00:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist for wider participation CfD when it deals with a matter like this is a broken process, because it does not get enough attention. I do not understand the argument that the fictional people noteworthy for having this disorder should be put in the same category as the real. I do not know if we do it generally, but I certainly hope we do not, for it seems very confusing. Perhaps this should be discussed as a general question. However, there is another option, which is to use a list for them. It would have the advantage of showing what fiction they were in, which would help browsing. Close was not helpful; admins should be able to tell when the discussion is inadequate--in this case and the related ones the judgment that it was was wrong, & enough reason to relist. DGG (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse; To me it looks like a solid administrative close; Postdlf sums up my views well. Were I in the position of closer, I would have made the same action based on the discussion there. On a personal level and per the comments of jc37, Alansohn's behaviour regarding CfDs and their outcome is becoming somewhat tiresome. It's good to have editors care about CfDs and their outcome, but it also needs to be recognised that consensus can exist even if you yourself have disagreed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you have offered any reason as to why reliable and verifiable sources establishing the trait of a fictional character being obsessive compulsive as a defining characteristic should be ignored? How would you have justified the rationalization of the category failing WP:OR in the face of the multiple sources provided? Alansohn (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily; in this case, probably not. Closers are not required to "provide reasons" when they close CfDs. It can be helpful in some circumstances if they do, but when consensus is relatively clear in favour of a decision, it's usually best to let the comments speak for themselves. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does "consensus" (which I interpret to assume you mean vote-counting) that the category violates WP:OR override multiple reliable and verifiable sources showing that the character trait is defining in general and that it is defining for the individuals included in the category? In the AfD world, sources convincingly beat a claim of WP:OR not unlike a royal flush beats a pair of threes in poker. In the CfD world, these same rules don't appear to apply, nor does there appear to be any willingness to acknowledge that such sources might even be worth considering as a justification for retention. The lack of a justification for deletion in the face of a well-sourced argument for retention -- even if permitted by policy -- only emphasizes an apparent disregard of WP:RS and WP:V, the bedrock foundations of Wikipedia. It is this most unfortunate tendency that undermines the validity of the extremely tenuous argument for "consensus" and "precedent" at CfD. Alansohn (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your assumptions are ill-founded. No, consensus ≠ vote counting. How many times must this be stated to you, Alansohn? I don't believe it, and I don't know of any admin who does. Theoretically, one editor's position could prevail over half a dozen opposite opinions. However, the minority opinion would have to be fairly convincing and based on sound policy, whereas the other opinions would have to be based on rubbish. While you may see this as applying in this case, I wouldn't view it that way. Don't be afraid to show some modesty about your own opinions; there's also no need to trash others', especially when they are explicitly asked for. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • My modesty in my logic only stands in stark contrast to your belief in the complete and total omniscience of administrators. I have explained that reliable sources > claims of WP:OR. That's what we have here. Maybe if you -- or more importantly Kbdank71 -- would bother to explain why these multiple verifiable and reliable sources should be be ignored, you might have me convinced. This "minority opinion" (again, with the vote counting!) offering sources to support retention trumps the "original research" excuse for deletion. Only in the Bizarro world of CfD does this not even merit an explanation of why it doesn't. If you can show me why the sources I have offered are not "sound policy" you would sound much more believable than just insisting that admin knows best. Alansohn (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please stop ascribing beliefs to me that have no basis in fact. Your entire manner makes users not want to answer you. You want an answer—or it seems, a better answer—or at least one that conforms with your views of WP. Well, tough. You've asked for my opinion, and I gave it. I'm sorry that it didn't satisfy you, but that wasn't my goal. When you can learn to be civil, then maybe we'll talk about it in more detail. Besides, the point of a DRV is not to refight your battles of the CfD. It's to assess whether the close was appropriate. Here, there's no question, really. It's all coming dangerously close to WP:POINT. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Reliable sources > claims of WP:OR" is a ridiculously simplistic formulation that is bound to be wrong in many circumstances if it even means anything, because it always depends upon what sources are being used to establish, and upon what is argued to depend upon OR. You clearly don't believe that it is even reasonable for others to conclude that your reliable sources don't prove your points, but once again, your disagreement is not grounds for reversing. It is certainly reasonable to conclude that your cited sources do not prove that the term "obsessive-compulsive" is uniformly applied to fictional characters based on the same underlying criteria (particularly when it is unrooted from the defined psychiatric condition, as you've noted above), so they cannot automatically trump the position of the other participants in the CFD that inclusion in the category relies upon OR. It is also certainly reasonable to conclude that your cited sources do not unequivocally prove that "obsessive-compulsive" is necessarily, or even typically, a defining characteristic of fictional characters. Postdlf (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • There are a few bedrock Wikipedia policies that have gone by the wayside here: WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. These three policies are designed to work together so that Wikipedia information is reliable:
                1. Wikipedia:Verifiability states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth [emphasis in original] — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
                2. Wikipedia:No original research states "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.... Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."
                3. Wikipedia:Reliable sources states "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
              • These three bedrock principles are what must guide all Wikipedia decision-making, and are policies that all editors, especially admins, should be aware of and should be applying as policy. These three policies could not be any clearer in establishing that reliable sources trump a claim of original research, what Postdlf calls a "ridiculously simplistic formulation". Postdlf seems to be demanding a standard of truth, in which the plain meaning of what sources say can be safely discarded because the term "Obsessive-compulsive" is not "uniformly applied to fictional characters", as if every term used in Wikipedia has been standardized to an absolute level of certainty and truth. Unfortunately, all we can do is take the term at face value, as we must with every other source on Wikipedia. Unlike the Wild West Bizarro World rules in place in the CfD world where sources provided to support claims need not even be examined, this is modus operandi at the real world of AfD. This series of edits to the article Ruse of war was conclusive in turning the tide at AfD and I could provide hundreds of other examples where AfD results were conclusively tilted to retention by the addition of sources. There is no reason that these same rules should not be applied at CfD. Is it possible that these sources are not reliable, or they are off topic? Perhaps. But of all of those supporting the close as within process, not one has bothered to address why the specific sources provided should be ignored here. They may be definitive, they may not, but all we have seen is a hypothetical justification used as an excuse to ignore reliable sources. Alansohn (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • DRV "is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly": WP:DRV. It's purpose is not to refight the CfD or to change what you view as deficiencies in the CfD process. There's no evidence that the discussion was misinterpreted. There is no evidence the closer did not consider your arguments presented in the discussion or that he somehow had ignored the fundamental policies of WP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sufficient evidence for a relist is the fact that the record doesn’t show a consensus (even rough), as points were made and not answered (vague references to a separate and length CfD are not good enough), appeals were made to the closing admin, the close lacked explanation. Someone has claimed that CfDs doen’t require explanations. Well, if they don’t, the policy is wrong, and explanations should be required in cases like this. Participation at CfD is poor, and closes without explanation make CfD more difficult for newcomers to it. A lack of evidence the closer did not consider some arguments is a pretty poor standard. All serious arguments should be explicilty considered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Arguing what admin practices should apply (but don't) isn't a particularly strong argument to make. Besides, in my opinion the argument in question was addressed by the comments of others, in the related CfD for "fictional Holocaust survivors", which was explicitly referred to by the nominator, who didn't want to reproduce his comments in several similar CfDs. I didn't find that reference "vague" at all; perhaps the closer didn't either. I still see no error in interpretation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I suppose that I agree that there maybe was not an error in the result, but I'd have liked a decent closing explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Sources ignored = improper close. The closer -- and those others jumping through hoops in trying to justify his actions -- ignored the sources provided, which beyond doubt rebut the claim of WP:OR. Neither the closer, nor his supporters, have yet addressed any of the sources provided, all of which explicitly support the claim that the characteristic is defining. I couldn't think of a more improper close. Alansohn (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Adrian Monk states he has "obsessive-compulsive disorder", but the article has no references. No sources to ignore. Your vote in the CFD refers to [1], which is a review of the show. An opinion piece. Per WP:RS, Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, so yes, I can and did ignore your "source". The only persons who can accurately describe Monk as obsessive-compulsive are the writers of the show, and I haven't seen any sources pointing to them. Anyone else stating it is merely giving an opinion, not a fact. --Kbdank71 15:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • The sources that you ignored were in the CfD you closed despite the sources provided there demonstrating that the characteristic is defining. If your concern was that the Adrian Monk article needed sources supporting the claim you certainly waited long enough to raise this as the reason for deleting the category; there are three sources there now and I would be happy to add more if they would address your concern. I am intrigued by your claim that the only individuals who have access to information about a character are the writers of the show. I don't quite understand your claim that reliable and verifiable sources can be ignored because they are not from the writer, which would basically eliminate the possibility of coming up with any reliable source under any circumstances about virtually any work of fiction. How is it that we are able to write articles with sources about Hamlet given that its author has been dead for a few hundred years? Please tell us that you're not serious about this being your understanding of how sources work in Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Damn, I never thought I'd want to quote Ronald Reagan, but "there you go again". You're essentially trying to refight the CfD. This is not the point of a DRV. I would also like to see some WP:AGF on the part of those who endorse the close: to suggest that we are all merely "supporters" of the closer who are "jumping through hoops" is a bit rich. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Damn, "there you go again", still refusing to address why the reliable and verifiable sources were ignored at CfD or here. This is not "refighting" the CfD, the sources were already there. It is this refusal to address these sources that is the problem. Unless you count that bit about all sources being invalid unless they're from the writer. I love that one! Alansohn (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                • I'm not addressing it b/c it's not the point of a DRV. Perhaps you should set up a talk page for this or something. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                • I'll address it because it's the reason I gave it less weight in the close: Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. Yes, Alan, I did address your sources. You haven't explained why I should accept your opinion piece as fact. --Kbdank71 21:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • What you deride as an "opinion piece" is what Wikipedia calls a "reliable source". Any admin who persists with this gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding of reliable sources should not be closing XfDs. You are only further demonstrating why this close is against process. Please tell us that you don't really believe that every article about a fictional work is an "opinion piece". Alansohn (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • This demonstrates perfectly the problem with the category. When we're dealing with fictional characters, it's difficult to know what is actually a clear "characteristic" of the character and what is one observer's opinion interpreting that character's behavior and assigning a characteristic to it. In this context, one man's opinion piece is another man's reliable source. It also demonstrates perfectly why this could be a great list—the source could be explicitly provided and the ambiguity even discussed, if necessary. That said, I think it's relatively clear what the admin's rationale was for deletion. So if we can get back to the purpose of the DRV, has the admin made any error in interpreting, apart from disagreeing with Alansohn about the cogency of a source? I can't see any. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • There's no problem with the category if we look at WP:RS and follow what it says; sources are sources. Its great to imagine that there is some sort of "ambiguity" in reading a source that describes a character as "Obsessive-compulsive" and simply stating that it can be ignored because it just might mean something else. All sources -- for fictional characters or otherwise -- are worthless if this argument is to be believed and accepted. No category can have sources and the use of some imagined ambiguity does not make it a "great list" while requiring its deletion as a category. The closing admin has made clear that his choice to discount the sources is not based on their not being reliable, but on his erroneous misinterpretation that no source about a fictional character could ever be accepted unless it was from the author. To quote the closing admin "The only persons who can accurately describe Monk as obsessive-compulsive are the writers of the show, and I haven't seen any sources pointing to them." Does anyone care to defend this as the basis for a valid rationale, let alone as the sole justification, to delete a category? Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • Your statement appears to oversimplify and thereby miss the point. If it was easy as saying "sources are sources" that would be fine, but of course things are a little more complex than this. If someone is interpreting the source as an "opinion piece", then it's an opinion piece to that person and the WP policies about opinion pieces will be applied, as here. The closer disagreed with you on how to categorize a source. That's hardly a reason to overturn a decision that's been otherwise supported. I understand that you are not probably going to concede anything, and that's fine—I'll stop trying to convince you. I don't see your positions generating much broader support, however. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • Newspapers have news articles and opinion pieces, usually in the form of op-ed or editorial pieces. The claim that any article that might be construed as a review of a film or television series is an opinion piece is entirely unsupported by WP:RS. That this entire decision-making process can be tilted by one admin pushing this bizarre and unsupported position to ignore any and all sources about fictional works as "opinion pieces", the same one who insists that the only reliable source about a character is one written by its creator, shows that this is not just one man's opinion, but admin decision making gone way wrong. Alansohn (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • Not to belabor the point, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that this—even if you are correct—was the sole issue that "flipped" the decision from keep to delete. There were a number of other comments/reasons supporting deletion that were given by other editors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent)No other policy justifications were offered. The question is to give weight to the multiple reliable sources provided showing the trait as defining in general and for the characters involved, or not. If these sources are indeed reliable and relevant (I'll get to that next), the rule that reliable sources trump claims of original research would prevail, even ignoring the trivial exceptions in which this "simplistic" rule at the foundation of Wikipedia might not apply. The question is whether or not these sources are reliable. Kbdank71 has offered two reasons for why the sources were ignored (or "discounted" to nothing): 1) A review of a film or television program is by definition an "opinion piece" and can thus be excluded (this diff); and 2) The ony reliable source about a fictional character is from its author or writer. ("The only persons who can accurately describe Monk as obsessive-compulsive are the writers of the show, and I haven't seen any sources pointing to them." this diff). It would seem hard to imagine that the close would have gone as it did without these two interpretations of policy that seem rather far out of the mainstream. Now that we have the justification for the close, it's up to other Wikipedia editors to determine if the two justifications Kbdank71 are valid. Alansohn (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Oh, no, that wasn't my justification for the close. Part of it, perhaps, but by no means the only reason. I was wondering why you latched onto that like a drowning man to a lifesaver. No, Alan, you can rest assured, I wouldn't have based the entire close on the reliability of only one of your sources. --Kbdank71 02:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the benefit of failing to explain a close. If you explain your close, other editors can rebut your justifications. If you don't, you can always play the game by saying that "Oh, no, that wasn't my justification for the close". There just might have been something else that was so strong that it would have pushed all of the reliable sources out of the way, but it's so super-duper secret that I can't tell you what it was. Just to play the guessing game, does the fact that "I wouldn't have based the entire close on the reliability of only one of your sources" mean that now there are two sources you have a question about? That you have taken most of a week to share only part of your justification and leave us guessing the rest speaks poorly of the legitimacy of the close. Alansohn (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion -- Alansohn has made an excellent case that this category was improperly deleted, and that this category complies with all policies. Exactly two other contributors gave brief comments favoring deletion -- but no one who favored deletion responded to his well thought out, coherent and civil points. Further, the deleting administrator totally failed to explain his or her reasoning for ignoring Alansohn's points. Geo Swan (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Complies with all policies? I'd be hard-pressed to support that statement. WP:OR tops the list of problems. Yes there are RL sources out there which state that a character may have such. But to call it defining of a character, requires interpretation of a fictional work. And that's simply WP:OR. A list article would be able to explain the application of the term to a character (perhaps even using the sources noted by Alansohn). But as a category can't provide references/sources for individual members of a category (See WP:CLN, that's not an option in a category. And since this requires sourced interpretation (among other things), it shouldn't be a category.

  And of course, DRV isn't CFD deux. So neither of us should be bothering to note these things.

  Though I suppose I should mention that I did note these things in several noms on that page, which I requested in that nom to be taken under consideration in the close. And Alansohn's "rebuttal", didn't address the WP:OR concerns (among other things). - jc37 13:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reading sources and transcribing the information therefrom is what WP:V and WP:RS mean. Your oft-repeated claim that transcribing information directly from sources constitutes "original research" is not only ludicrous on its face, but would basically turn WP:OR into a joke. Your statement "But to call it defining of a character, requires interpretation of a fictional work" shows that you have completely misunderstood and misrepresented WP:OR; our job in obtaining sources is to find sources that support statements, not to find sources that support those sources which support other sources, in some neverending cycle. We take reliable sources at face value. The "sourced interpretation" that you keep on demanding is exactly what is prohibited by WP:OR, and your persistence in making the demand is further evidence of pushing some sort of bizarre deconstructionist agenda in which "words" and "sources" mean what you think they mean, not what they actually say.

    WP:CLN offers the strongest possible encouragement for lists AND categories co-existing. WP:CLN does point out that categories can't include sources, which would be an excuse to delete the entire category system if taken as your only argument from WP:CLN. In extremely limited cases, such as controversial categories, WP:CLN might prefer a list, but you can't possibly be arguing that this category is controversial.

    My rebuttal, which includes multiple reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim that the term "Obsessive-compulsive" is a defining characteristic for fictional characters in general and for the characters listed cannot be any more conclusive in rebutting the repeatedly false claims of WP:OR. I admire your determination to the belief that sources can be ignored because they can't possibly mean what exactly what they say, but that's not how Wikipedia works.. Alansohn (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't have to be mentioned again and again, but I find myself doing it. Can we assume good faith on the part of other editors? To suggest that others are "pushing an agenda" does not AGF, nor is it particularly nice. We can each forcefully communicate our positions without skirting the borders of dickery. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, I have refactored my statement. Agenda or not, there is still no justification for "dickery" on your part as well. Alansohn (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said we can all avoid skirting the borders of dickery. I was careful not to suggest there was dickery. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:

  This is slightly an aside. And I don't want to place it as a response to any specific person, but it seems to me that a key part of the confusion here may be alansohn interprets Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and the application thereof, differently at least than the other commenters here. And further, I don't think he's understood what I've been saying concerning Wikipedia:Original research.

  And as I'd like to presume good faith, I'd like to hope that this is merely a misunderstanding of policy, and not POV pushing. or worse, bad faith accusations. Because right now, the latter is sincerely what it appears to be. (Up to this point, I've avoided diffs concerning editor behaviour - unless it would have been requested by a reviewing admin - simply because I'm hoping to avoid more (likely needless) disruption, and for now at least, I intend to continue that personal choice.)

  So the following is an attempt to educate and inform based on what I see, and my experience. It's in no way an attack on anyone. It's essentially my last shot at trying to presume good faith.

  SO as a start, I'd like to hope that everyone here would take a moment and re-read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. A key sentence that perhaps might help concerning some sources is: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact" - This is enboldened on that page. And since categories must be about facts, not opinions (due to WP:NPOV, among a myriad of other policies), opinion pieces are not adequate for categorisation. (See also #7 at WP:CAT.)

  And that's a problem with fiction in particular. Rather than try to re-explain again, I'll just point everyone to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#The_problem_with_in-universe_perspective.

  A key concern of that page is Original research.

  And so when we go look at WP:OR, much of that is explained, but I'll focus for the moment on a section concerning the usage of primary sources:

  To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

  • only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
  • make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

  Now when we start to try to apply a particular "label" to a fictional character, we run into this particular problem. With a "real live" human being, this is fairly clear, and only is called into question regarding the scholarship of the source in question (did they check their facts, and so on).

  Well with a fictional character, who do we ask? Who's considered a reliable source as to whether a character has such a disorder? Someone watching Felix Unger on television, who may have this opinion based upon the symptoms they have witnessed? How about someone who is an activist for people with this disorder? Would they perhaps be considered to be pushing an agenda? One of the myraid of writers on The Odd Couple? What if the writers' opinion are contradictory?

  The main problem with fiction is that it's an interpretive art. And as editors of this encyclopedia, we're not allowed to make those interpretations. To do so is original research.

  Now we can go find secondary sources who have made an interpretation, and present that information in a scholarly article. But as WP:CLN (and most of the links I've provided already) indicate, a category is simply not the format for presenting such interpretive information.

  I hope this clarifies.

  That said, I'm happy to enjoinder collegiate discussion concerning policies and giudelines. But I'll frankly ignore continued accusations of presumed intention. - jc37 04:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Roll the dice.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache

The image is a low-res picture of a book cover. This was used to illustrate an article which discussed the book and its author, which is fair use. I spent some time explaining this on the talk page when the image was tagged but the deleting admin did not seem to read this as the deletion log indicates that he was deleting several images per minute and didn't skip a beat when he came to this one. I contacted him. His response was perfunctory and he has since been inactive. The thread has now scrolled off his talk page and so here we are. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use can be used to justify using the book cover in an article about the book, but not in an article about the author of the book. Endorse deletion. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Overturn/List at IfD as per reasonable request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Eh. You can list it at IfD but it will probably be deleted there, as User:NurseryRhyme is correct, the FU exemption is for articles about the book, not the author. If the book is never going to be notable you could probably write some specific FU rationale tailored to that page, but just saying, it might very well be deleted at IfD. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/List at IfD -- Ned Scott 06:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• That image (Image:Roll the Dice.jpg) doesn't appear to have ever existed. Can we get the correct name please? Stifle (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears to have been Image:Roll the dice.jpg
• Note - the deletion was perfectly in process...the entire rationale was "Low res picture of book cover of autobiography of Darius Guppy to illustrate article on the author and his works. This image is not replaceable since it shows a book cover and all pictures of this cover will be essentially the same. The picture is low-res and so fair use by customary practise." which misses a few essentials. That said there is no problem with running it at IfD...except that it's virtually certain the be deleted as it would be just decorative in the Darius Guppy article. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at IfD I think it might hold at Ifd--for an autobio it seems a reasonable illustration. DGG (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, the image was replaceable in the context in which it was used. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and list at IfD - The image was speedy deleted per (CSD I7) as an image with an invalid fair use rationale. A valid fair use rationale for using the book cover in Darius Guppy requires meeting Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria with reliable source material. Wikipedia:Nfc#Images allows cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). The image page lacked such information. In addition, sourced critical commentary about Darius Guppy in the Darius Guppy article would not meet the "critical commentary of the book cover" requirement of Wikipedia:Nfc#Images. Sourced critical commentary about a book in the Darius Guppy article would seem to be an off topic way to try to justify including an image of the book in the Darius Guppy article. It seems to be done more often that we care to admit and consensus could fall in favor of such an effort. Speedy delete was appropriate, but given that the article is references and specifically is referenced in the Roll the Dice section, reasonable doubt exists as to whether this image can be listed in the article. IfD would be appropriate to address this issue. -- Suntag ☼ 17:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Finkelstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))(AfD2) (DRV)

The article appears as a red link in my article Is Google Making Us Stupid? and so it just makes sense to resurrect this article (which I read in some log was actually quite well referenced). Finkelstein is somewhat important. Notable enough, I say. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure some helpful soul will incorporate this prettily into the drvlinks template above, but the previous discussions here are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd), and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 30. My opinion is endorse deletion per the latter two, particularly Xoloz's insightful close of the deletion review. Ignoring his own articles in The Guardian (and by long consensus one's own articles don't make a journalist notable) and extraneous news hits for another guy with the same name there is no significant coverage since the last DRV, and no reasons to ignore it given by the nominator. We made the right decision here the first time; let's let this one lie. Chick Bowen 05:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems a pity. Could I look at the article, anyhow?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Could it be userified on my talk page or something? I would like to see what was previously written about Seth Finkelstein.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Better yet, why is Wikipedia being so difficult about this particular article? Just restore it. Clearly it is bugging people that it isn't around. I am feeling quite self-righteous and may have to raise a storm in the form of an indefinite tornado to rampage against all who wish to keep this article down. It must rise up again! Leave behind your former silliness and endorse an overturn! Thank you. Good day.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close no process issues raised, no new information presented (substantive of otherwise), just not liking or disagreeing with the outcome is not a DRV matter. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Didn't I explain that it is a red link in an article I recently wrote so therefore shouldn't this article be written? Yet I have discovered that it was written... and has had a vigorous AfD and DRV debate. It seems like eventually you have to give in, right? Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information but in this case they seem to be hiding the information behind some kind of deletion server. I would like to read the article (as would many others I'm guessing) so let's restore it, please. Thank you.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And do our deletion criteria or processes make special account for red links? (Our inclusion criteria specifically exclude internal links from wikipedia.) Can I create a redlink to anything I want very easily, should we provide an end run around every deletion debate just by creating a redlink to something? The existance of a redlink is irrelevant. As to the rest of your statement that enforces the view that you merely disagree with the deletion outcome, something DRV isn't for. Your statement that "It seems like eventually you have to give in, right?" is seriously towards gaming the system. "Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information" please see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so no merely being "information" is not sufficient --82.7.39.174 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I believe Finkelstein is notable. He has done a lot of high exposure work, and has received awards for it. Also, these red links are just more proof that he is notable. How many red links does it take for someone to realize, hmm.... it is not that Finkelstein is notable on Wikipedia but in fact notable in real life. Ummm... Wake up.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm sorry, but I believe Finkelstein is notable." - yes we got that, you disagree with the outcome of the debates, as already above, not what DRV is for. "these red links are just more proof that he is notable" well John Zebedde Fred Zebedde no idea if they are real people but the prescence of the red links is no proof of notability. "How many red links does it take for someone to realize" read links are irrelevant - read the notability guidelines no where does the amount of red links on wikipedia count for anything. It isn't for wikipedia editors to decide based on creaton of red links (how about Bert Zebedde) the general notability is defined elsewhere. Again the consensus so far is that he doesn't meet the inclusion criteria, and again this is just you disagreeing with that debate (and creating a red link to "prove" something, hey I disagree with the deletion of X, I'll work in a red link somewhere, end run around the deletion debate?). Read what WP:DRV is actually for it isn't that, if you have some significant new material which overcomes the issues of the deletion debates then present it, and I'll repeat again create as many red links as you like, the inclusion criteria couldn't care less about them. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • There is so much wrong with the above I don't know where to start. It is comments like this that make it so difficult for people like me to defend the rights of IPs to edit. Seth is linked in mainspace, repeatedly. That should be obviously different from you constructing random names and linking them. Moreover, the issue at hand is not whether Seth passes the basic notability criterion since everyone agrees that he does. The issue is whether he is of borderline notability. Since there's no rigorous definition of what constitutes borderline notability (See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP) bringing up issues like how often Seth is linked to in mainspace are perfectly reasonable as possible measures of his notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err so if I created an account and made the same comments you'd not have an issue? What has editing as an IP got to do with this? Sorry you dislike the creation of random names, the point was simple and still is the consensus wrapped up in the notability guidelines doesn't consider them important, if you want to change that then there are far better places to discuss that and change the guidelines than here. The bottom line still is this review isn't based on any new information other than the creation of more internal links within wikipedia and the requester believing the original outcome to be incorrect. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you had an account I would have likely found another method of expressing my frustration with your remark. The fact that you were an anon is additional frustration precisely because I'm a strong proponent of allowing anons to comment. Now, it appears you didn't address the issue at hand. So let's be clear: Seth is notable. Everyone agrees to that. The question is not how to define notability. The question is how to define "borderline notability." It is perfectly reasonable that valid red links in mainspace are one measure that might could go into the weighing. If you don't see the difference between that are your creation on a talk page of random names then I don't have much to say to you and I doubt almost anyone else will either. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You mean you believe that it is perfectly reasonable to count redlinks, others may disagree. My example of how easily redlinks can be created was of to be abstract and the links to be invalid, I wasn't going to make a point and find similar real world examples and insert red links in a valid manner in as many articles as I could. I'm not sure why you can't see how easily the use of red links could be gamed which leads me to the opposite conclusion to you, that counting redlinks isn't a perfectly reasonable metric, and indeed wikipedia's policies/guidelines etc. don't currently contemplate such a metric, so I guess I'm not alone. Definining this borderline notability and the appropriateness of counting redlinks isn't actually issue for DRV, if anyone wants to change the way we deal with such cases this isn't the venue to force the issue (though of course define borderline notability and you just create a new border). And I still go back to my mine point the only new information raised in the request for review is that the nominator disagrees with the original nomination and that a new red link exists, I perceive neither as issues for DRV --82.7.39.174 (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've userfied it to User:Manhattan Samurai/Seth Finkelstein. I think this can be closed now. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, restore original to article space, and delete everything. The community has previously decided to honor the subject's request to not have an article, and nominator here has given us no reason to overturn the prior consensus. More generally, this was not an article that should have been userfied - it should at most have been emailed to the requestor. GRBerry 13:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Close - The last DRV was clear as to what was needed to restore this article. Referring to the 2007 December 30 DRV, the DRV closer wrote:

  The consensus below simply does not favor restoration of this article. The question of the subject's "borderline notability" is one that may be reopened should additional sources come to light, but there is no agreement below that the sources presented refute the "borderline notability" conclusion reached at AfD. In contrast to some other BLP deletions (where people must make presumptions on the subject's behalf) this DRV is visited by the gentleman himself, forcefully arguing for his own anonymity. It is a good thing for editors to remain vigilant, and concerned with striking a "balance of interests" in applying WP:BLP. The subject does not own the article bearing his name, and never exercises an absolute veto over its existence. Any "courtesy deletion" of a "borderline notable" person should be taken with utmost care and consideration, weighing both the privacy rights of the individual and the encyclopedia's duty to chronicle every notable truth. The consensus below is that, in this case, due consideration was given, and the right result reached.

Basically, a DRV requesting to recreate this topic as an article needs to include (1) a list of additional sources not in the deleted article and (2) a statement addressing the "balance of interests" and why that balance favors recreate this topic as an article. Feel free to post a new DRV meeting these requirements. -- Suntag ☼ 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, it just looks a little strange being the only red link in an article I'm working on. But I see the writer (or whatever he is, because I don't really know, which is why I would've liked to read the article) has actually lobbied to have his article deleted.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Not endorsing at all on this article since I still disagree strongly with the original deletion. I will however note that I have been keeping careful track of Seth's appearances in the media since the deletion and none of them are significant enough for me to be able to honestly argue that the situation has changed in that regard. We may wish to reconsider the previous DRV and see if the consensus is that same as it was previously. Simply endorsing deletion due to a previous consensus is less than helpful. I've incidentally taken the liberty of letting Seth know about this discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, we should do that. Isn't it crazy that we are not allowed to cover Seth Finkelstein? It is censorship... and really, Finkelstein will just have to get used to the fact that he has a Wikipedia article. We are now in the dark about who Finkelstein is and what he has been doing, yet he continues to write about important issues. I believe Finkelstein is afraid that we may peg his positions on certain issues, but frankly, we have a right to that knowledge. And now he is tangentially involved in a discussion about the magazine article Is Google Making Us Stupid? where knowing something about his positions might be useful, but still there is a refusal to create an article about him. Why are we biting this bullet?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I have to say, this is an outrage! I'm calm but this article is pretty interesting, as is Mr. Finkelstein, and what more, we've been denied continued improvements to his biography. Shouldn't we discuss this again? He's won awards and done some work as an activist. Is he mainly an activist?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Finkelstein has done a variety of things. He first came to wide attention for his work with censorware. He got an EFF Pioneer award for that work. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a web site <http://stalkedbyseth.com/> that is potentially wrongheaded (I'll assume wrongheaded) but for controversial people like Mr. Finkelstein it makes sense to have a Wikipedia article. That way we can come to a consensus on what is a NPOV on him. I want to be able to read in a Wikipedia context about this "stalked by seth" silliness. We really need this article. I like the fact that most often Wikipedia will sort out this kind of nuttiness for you, either on the talk pages or in the edit summary history. Please, overturn this deletion.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The presence of a website devoted to attacking Seth has little bearing on his notability. Do you think this makes me notable? Seth's disputes with a variety of notable people are nearly internet legends but they have no reliable sources talking about those disputes. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sigh... it appears yet another Wiki-conspiracy is ongoing. Yet all I want is to have the red link turn blue in my article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's no wiki-conspiracy here just a lot of history that you might not be aware of. Seth was one of the test cases for courtesy deletion of borderline notable people. Seth had pushed for the deletion of his article for a long time before this finally occurred. I suspect that many people simply don't want an article on the subject at this time because the drama factor would be too high. As far as I can tell if we had someone of Seth's level of notability who was not Seth who requested deletion we would say no. This isn't an example of a "Wiki-conspiracy" just that Wikipedians are humans. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sigh... It appears that Wikipedia is being censored. Why else would Seth Finkelstein be exempt from having an article? You can't pick or choose who is written about at Wikipedia. This reference source should be censorship free. I feel like I'm in China. A definite Wiki-conspiracy is ongoing here.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh... This appears to be another one of those cases in which Wikipedia consensus will fail to see reason on a very reasonable request.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It appears to me that Seth Finkelstein has bullied Wikipedia into deleting his article, and is probably quite proud of this feat. It would be nice to reverse it. If you noticed all the other critics in the article on "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" have their own Wiki articles. He is a regular critic from what I can tell, one of some note, having recently written an article titled "Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Wales says". I think Wikipedia should reverse the cowardly deletion of this article. Clearly Finkelstein raises important issues and we have a right to know where he stands. Do we have to start a separate Website to deal with this kind of material involving critics of Wikipedia?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as nominator on the successful deletion request. Manhattan Samurai, I respect your reasons for wishing a review. And it's been nearly a year since the last one; that's not too soon to ask. If the subject had no objection to an article then I would wholeheartedly endorse your proposal. He has, however, a very articulate and repeated objection to it. Now although the site guidelines offer no specific threshold for borderline notability, I advocate what I call a 'dead trees standard'--which means I offer courtesy deletion nominations upon request for any individual who's the subject of a Wikipedia biography and wants off, so long as the person isn't notable enough to have an article in a reliable paper-and-ink encyclopedia (including specialty encyclopedias). It costs us little in terms of completeness to extend this courtesy and earns substantial goodwill. Durova^Charge! 22:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That is the most meaningless argument brought up here so far. Let's just throw out your "dead trees standard" which means nothing and sounds Orwellian, and agree that Seth Finkelstein is notable (what were his article's page hits before deletion)? Mr. Finkelstein routinely raises issues of note and yet we can't summarize those issues in his article? Cowardly. The criteria of paper-and-ink encyclopedias are of absolutely no consequence in this DRV. Finkelstein's opinion of Wikipedia is also of no consequence in this DRV. His notability is and that is quite easy to establish. I have yet to see any valid reason not to have an article on Seth Finkelstein.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It isn't meaningless. It is a possible workable standard for testing whether we should include specific individuals who request their deletion. (I've objected extensively to this standard as unworkable for a variety of reasons, but it does have the advantage of being fairly objective). But it isn't meaningless or Orwellian and there seem to be a fair number of editors who agree with it. As far as I can tell, the repeated keeps for Don Murphy suggest that the general consensus for where borderline notability is is a bit lower than what this generally encompasses. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many very notable critics of the web are included in specialty encyclopedias, or any type of encyclopedia? Isn't that a little ridiculous? I mean how many encyclopedias have articles on Jimbo Wales? or Larry Sanger? or several of the other critics who are mentioned in the article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?".Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Jimbo was in some dead tree sources (there are a surprisingly large number of dead tree encyclopedias about specialized subject), but to some extent you are preaching to the choir. But whether a standard is a bad standard is distinct from where it is meaningless. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you very much, Joshua, for defending my reasoning in spite of your different conclusion. Manhattan Samurai, Wikipedia has had a small but persistent problem with individuals who don't want an article about themselves. And in fairness to these people, there's a legitimate case to be made on their behalf: a biography article on an open edit website might be abused tactically by these people's competitors when they seek new professional opportunities. A Wikipedia article is often the first result on a Google search and nearly always in the first page. Since we have a conflict of interest guideline asking people to exercise restraint about editing subjects that pertain to themselves, and (being volunteer-run) don't always keep up with these problems as well as we ought, I've thought it was fair to offer a reasonable deletion upon request. 'Dead trees' isn't an ideal standard--its chief advantage is that it's verifiable. But it's my abiding belief that ethical decisions where good people disagree belong in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences. You and I will walk away from this discussion with little lost or gained either way; Mr. Finkelstein's professional prospects may be affected. His wishes are clear, and my ethical conclusion is to honor them. Your conclusion and Joshua's may differ, but please join him in respect for the conscientious decision behind it. Durova^Charge! 22:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you are wrong. There are already certain individuals (stalkedbyseth.com) who are attempting to defame Seth Finkelsten. A Wikipedia article about Mr. Finkelstein is unlikely to do that. It would look at the various positions he has taken on certain issues to inform the public. Your argument is a very bad one, considering Seth Finkelstein routinely publishes highly controversial articles, and has most definitely brought some attention to himself. The absence of a Wikipedia article is not going to create some sort of blank slate on his career, but will in fact bring it into focus. I don't think Finkelstein has anything to hide, and in fact, has a lot to be proud of. Also, we (public) have the right to be informed and write a Wiki article about Seth Finkelstein.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • • Manhattan Samruai, you appear to be unfamiliar with my offsite publications on this subject (I won't link to them but they're pretty easy to Google). Yes, unfortunately, people have come to Wikipedia and misused the site's open edit features with an intent to do unmerited harm to the subject's reputation. This has happened with United States congressional representatives (whom we can't very well delete) and we haven't kept on top of it. Given that we aren't on the ball with the essential biographies, I think it's only right and proper that we honor the subject's wishes in requests to delete the nonessential ones. You may disagree of course, yet please respect that my reasoning has some actual basis. And...um...I'm 'Ms. Durova'. Durova^Charge! 23:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • It sounds to me like you are saying Wikipedia is no longer capable of having articles because they are risky to the subjects? Again, I see no argument here put forward that is a legitimate reason for keeping the Finkelstein article deleted.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• New information Look at all these recent articles Seth Finkelstein has written about hot-button topics: "How will Wikia cope when the workers all quit the plantation?", "Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Wales says", "Orwell was right: security by obscurity = ignorance is strength", and "Don't just blame the internet for polarised viewpoints". Why again are we not allowed to have some sort of ongoing history/biography of Finkelstein's positions on various issues? Very Orwellian of Wikipedia which usually counters any Orwellian moves on the part of the world. We need this article on Finkelstein.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. The presence of new articles is a valid point. But could we stop with the cries of Orwellianism? They don't help matters (JoshuaZ's modification of Godwin's Law, as a DRV progresses the probability of a 1984 reference approaches 1). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to wonder if maybe Wikipedia doesn't want to have an article on Seth Finkelstein because of his opinions against Wikipedia and Wikia. There is a lot of weirdness surrounding this deletion of the Finkelstein article.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Heh, when I nominated Angela Beesley's bio for deletion people accused me of having done it because of her WP ties. Now the pendulum has swung so far we get accusations that Seth's bio was deleted for the opposite cause, even though they both went up with the same rationale. Did WP:ABF become policy? Durova^Charge! 00:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm assuming cowardice on this one. I'm hearing a lot of nothing, a lot of convoluted thinking, and no one addressing the fact that Seth Finkelstein is notable, and that the article about him was well sourced, and how knowing a Wiki article's worth about him is a worthwhile use of server space. No one is addressing that. So maybe I should start assuming bad faith too.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Manhattan Samurai, please rephrase or withdraw that assertion. It looks very much like you're accusing me of cowardice, which would be a bad faith personal attack. An aggressive and uncivil tone does no one any good, least of all you or the position you advocate. Durova^Charge! 04:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I will not withdraw my assertion, I will only improve it by asserting that all who endorse this deletion are guilty of cowardice. Why else would dozens of other critics of Wikipedia and the web (see the article Is Google Making Us Stupid? for a who's who almost) have their own Wiki articles while Seth Finkelstein is exempt.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs), two people have already complained about personal attacks by you at this thread [2], [3]. Please reconsider your approach, refactor your comments, and maintain civility in discussion. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doubtful, I mean that may be part of it for some people but we have articles about a variety of critics. They haven't requested deletion or anything like that though. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but allow recreation if suitable sources are provided. A redlink doesn't justify an article - the redlink can be removed. If an article is justified, there will be reputable secondary sources about the subject. Articles by the subject do not meet our criteria. If suitable sources can be found (reputable commentary about the subject), then a fresh article should be created, as it sounds like the original wasn't based on suitable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, it might help just a tad if you were to research matters a bit before commenting on them. There was never a dearth of sources. Finkelstein's notability was clear. The article was deleted because he requested it together with the notion that biographies which were of "borderline notability" should be deleted when the individual in question requested it. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Helllloooooo??? Have you read User:Manhattan_Samurai/Seth_Finkelstein. There are secondary sources. This is tiring. How about we work together to make this article suitable rather than talking abstractly about some potential writing we might do. Just restore the article and then we'll work to bring it up to snuff.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had missed User:Manhattan_Samurai/Seth_Finkelstein, above, and was guessing the state of referencing based on others’ comments, here and at the AfDs. Mere mentions don’t count. The subject’s publications don’t count. Mahatten’s “New information” I found particularly unimpressive. However, having read the userfied article, I can’t see what the problem is. There are references that demonstrate notability and satisfy WP:BLP, such as http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9406E0D9163AF93AA25754C0A9679C8B63 &

http://w2.eff.org/awards/pioneer.html/2001.php Several other source links aren’t working for me. The subject’s concern seems to be that the article is a troll magnet or an easy site to abuse him. The solution to this is permanent semi-protection or even protection, not deletion. He can’t have every possible avenue of possible abuse closed. Changing to overturn, as I can’t see the logic behind many of the delete reasons and suitable sources exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk)

• Endorse deletion Manhattan Samurai. Stop badgering people about this. I'm not sure if this is some elaborate performance art or if you feel this is the right way to engage in a discussion of these issues but it is borderline unacceptable. Protonk (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yet another thoughtless vote. Doesn't address a single issue, hasn't a single merit in his paragraph, and throws a borderline personal attack at me.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Words like "thoughtless" "cowardice" and accusations of conspiracy and incompetence are borderline attacks. I am suggesting that you stop. Stop. It does not help you, the article under scrutiny, or anyone else to behave in this fashion. Protonk (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki cabal Why are the only people voting apparently those who are well versed in this issue? I have noticed a cowardly bias in the votes here, probably because those voting appear to have been previously abused from debates concerning the Seth Finkelstein article. I would like to hear some fresh voices. By now, in a regular Wiki attempt at consensus, there would have been at least one or two Wikipedians voting for Overturn.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• ZOMGCABAL endorse - Manhattan Samurai, the fact that someone is attacking Seth with a website means nothing to his notability here. It's been determined that, especially considering his request, an article about him is not appropriate at this point in time, and nothing that you've brought up amidst the claims of Orwellian behaviour, cabalism, and misbehaviour. Nothing you have pointed out here is a reason to reverse the previous deletions. You want an easy way to handle that red link? Take out the [[ and ]] on either side of it. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. I am the only one (well one of the few) who has actually made real points. You know what? I am sick to hell of people telling me in these AfDs or DRVs that I have not made a relevant point. I am sick to HELL of it. It is you people who ramble on about nothing. If someone wants to read about Seth Finkelstein they should damn well be able to. There is no reason why we Wikipedian contributors are allowed to have Wiki articles about OTHER critics but are not allowed to have Wiki articles about Seth Finkelstein. Do not dare tell me I have not made any reasonable points. This is the most wrongheaded consensus I have ever seen, which makes me suspect a Wiki cabal or simply a stale group of voters. How do I get out the vote to a fresher group of eyes?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. There is a simple solution to your problem, Manhattan Samurai. You can do it, or if you like, I can do it for you. It is to go to the Wikipedia article Is Google Making Us Stupid?, and press "delete" four times, twice on either side of the words "Seth Finkelstein". Amazingly, the red link will disappear. Blue links are overrated, just ask the folks at WP:FAC. Risker (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I am so happy for you!!! You have managed to perfectly echo Tony Fox. Where can I report Wiki cabalism ... because seriously you guys are sitting on this article and keeping it deleted simply because you were previously involved in these AfD and DRV discussions before. In other words, you all need to get away from it and let fresh eyes cast votes.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Go find where I've been involved with discussions about this article in the past, please, because if you find some indication of it, then I'll have to change my password 'cuz someone's been using my account when I didn't know about it. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, don't worry about it. It's getting a little hot in here, huh? I had to change my shirt because it was getting so sweaty. Well, I think now that we've worked our way through all the Wiki-sitters we're starting to get some fresh new voices. Maybe the next 24 hours will see some improvement in the consensus... towards Overturn of course. That would be an improvement to me.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Agree with rationale provided above by GRBerry (talk · contribs) and Suntag (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Et tu, Cirt?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I wonder with all the hits you get on Google Books and books listed on Amazon that include comments by Seth Finkelstein, if he wrote all the authors and asked them to remove his name and comments, what they said? Whatever it was, it didn't effect them including him in their books. Are we holding his notoriety to a higher standard? That's about 25 books on the Google hit and about 18 on Amazon. This includes the same books listed at both, so lets say an average of 22 books.--JavierMC 05:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I know, I know. It's crazy. I just don't want to work on this in my userspace. If we resurrect it then all those books can be used to include some interesting factoids.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation/overturn It's been well established that this individual is notable by our inclusion standards. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I'm all for consensus can change but we are discussing this with no change in the overall sourcing. This is a minor barely notable figure whose body of work is the most notable think about them. They are strongly opposed to having a bio and the policy on barely notable figures is that they can have their bios deleted. Big note to everyone who cites the sources BLP applies as well. There is nothing more to add except that its hight time that we stopped writing synthetic biographies and only wrote bios on biographical sources, you know actual biographies, autobiographies and newspaper/magazine profiles. That would solve our BLP nightmare in one stroke. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - for a whole myriad of reasons. Folks, we've been over this one before, and not all that long ago - Alison ^❤ 13:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]