Buck Humphrey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The summary discussion indicates he was simply a campaign worker and the Deletion discussion began prior to inclusion of his current position.

Buck Humphrey is a Democratic politician from Minnesota who is currently the Chief of the Office of Communications for US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in Washington. [1] I believe the article did not included his current position at the beginning of the AfD discussion. He receives media attention as part of his current position. [2] [3] He is involved in national Democratic politics, is a member of the Democratic National Committee and was a superdelegate at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. [4]

He has been the Minnesota state campaign chairman for a major Democratic candidate in every Presidential election cycle since 2000: Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004 and Hillary Clinton in 2008. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Contrary to the Deletion discussion he was not limited to being a campaign worker.

He has been generating media coverage as a political candidate regionally since running against the incumbent MN Secretary of State in 2002. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

His endorsements are reported in the press. [21] [22]

He is quoted in connection with campaign politics involving MN. (i.e. contested Senate results Coleman v Franklin) [23]

He does receive press in connection with being from a well known political family. Part of the argument for deletion was that he inherited rather than earned his notability. [24] [25]

He receives mention in national press coverage that very few MN politicians can match. USA TODAY [26] CBS News [27] Fox News (fair and balanced?}[28] Chicago Tribune [29] Baltimore Sun [30] Boston Globe [31] and even ESPN [32] I was not an editor of the article but was the last to post to the deletion discussion and the only “strong keep”. Eudemis (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• While Eudemis provides a large number of citations, I believe that a closer look at them is necessary. First a few of the links (2 or 3) do not mention him and a few are about his failed political career. Unfortunately, most require a payment, but the extent that they can be read, he is mentioned trivially at best. Humphrey was a campaign manager for a number of politicians, as such he has been oft quoted, but as a representative of various campaigns that he manages---not because he is independently notable. If any of the sources provided were about Buck, I would gladly restore the article myself. With the exception of the ESPN article, which gave him 2 short paragraphs, virtually everything citation is a short sound byte because he is Hubert Humphry's grandson or a campaign manager. Here are typical citations:

• Four {out of 14} have endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton: Mondale and Democratic National Committee members Jackie Stevenson, Rick Stafford and Hubert "Buck" Humphrey. ---mention is nothing but his name.
• CIS spokesman Buck Humphrey said agency staff has been reallocated to deal with the number of applications expected when the program begins Thursday
• Hubert (Buck) Humphrey IV, state director for Gore-Lieberman 2000, said he hoped voters would stay focused on the issues.
• Hubert (Buck) Humphrey IV, a top leader of the Kerry campaign presiding over a celebration at Grandma's Saloon in Minneapolis, exulted...
• Hubert (Buck) Humphrey IV, Clinton's campaign manager in Minnesota, tried to put the best face on her prospects, but added, "it's going to be tough." ...
• while a few hours earlier his son, Hubert "Buck"Humphrey, introduced U.S. Sen. John Kerry's state leadership team... (Apparently his father is also notable, as the article was about his dad.)
• Hubert (Buck) Humphrey, Clinton's campaign manager in Minnesota, said the results are "similar to some polls I've seen nationally where [Obama seems to do a little better..."]
• Hubert “Buck” Humphrey, grandson of Vice President Hubert Humphrey, said his concern is that voters need to look at why Coleman should be voted out of office, not listening to a list of problems the Democratic candidate faces.
• deals with his introducing a film on his grandfather former VP Humphry.
• "I have a general impression that Sen. Obama has not been so organized in Minnesota as Sen. (Hillary) Clinton," he said, noting that Clinton's campaign director in Minnesota is Buck Humphrey, a descendant of famed Minnesota politician Hubert H. Humphrey.
• "We're aware that their support is very crucial, especially the folks who have not been involved," said Buck Humphrey, Minnesota co-chairman of Kerry's campaign.
• HubertBuck Humphrey IV head of Al Gore's campaign in Minnesota said his campaign planned to print only a small number of signs
• Buck [Hubert Humphrey, grandson of the late vice president who is running the [Al Gore] campaign here out of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party headquarters, just as suddenly was able to get Mr. Gore in Minneapolis for a big rally Sunday.]
• Hubert "Buck" Humphrey, Gore's Minnesota field organizer, quoted in USA Today. On the net "

Believe it or not, ESPN provided the largest piece on Buck! In a large article on Minnisota Gopher Hockey, the author gives a short anecdote in the first two paragraphs about Buck using a hockey rink for a meeting rather than community center or union hall because it highlights how Minnesotans are so into Hockey not because Buck himself is notable. I would love to see a reason to keep this article, but the sources provided are not meaningful, they are all trivial in coverage that are quoting him as he relates to others who are notable. Unless we are willing to state that campaign managers, spokespersons, and pr publicists are notable because their job position puts them in the limelight where they might be quoted, then I can't see how these non-significant sources meet our notability requirements.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW Eudemis, if you want to salvage the article, what we need aren't a large quantity of sources, but rather sources explicitly about Buck... and ones announcing his failed campaign aren't necessarily going to do it. I do believe that his relationship to his grandfather has brought more attention to him than the average politician/person in his role, but we need sources about him, not ones that are quoting him talking about somebody/something else. We need coverage that isn't trivial in nature. EG not merely a sentence introducing a soundbyte as a campaign manager.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 12:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse. The sources were evaluated at the AFD and found wanting; DRV is a place to raise problems caused by failure to follow the deletion process properly. It is not a place to list articles because you disagree with the outcome. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse. This is scarcely a man of lasting international importance, I see no evidence of significant achievements of any kind, and the consensus is that he's insufficiently notable to merit an article under our BLP criteria—which is probably because he's received somewhat less coverage in reliable sources than, say, the average Big Brother contestant.—S Marshall T/C 11:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse as accurate assessment of discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure which links Balloonman believe don't mention him, but I went back through all of them and couldn't locate the ones to which he's referring. I tried to state in the first sentence what I believed was wrong with the deletion discussion. As I was the last poster to the deletion discussion, other posters would not have evaluated the links as they were not a part of the article.Eudemis (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I guess the operative word is "mention", mere mentions aren't enough, the WP:GNG requires the articles to be about him in a non-trivial way, mentions don't pass that bar. For WP:V we also need articles about him, not mentions of what he's said, meetings he's attended etc. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There were two or three where I couldn't find his name and the FIND didn't work. It is possible that I simply missed them and mispelt his name while looking for it. But if that is the case, then I would state that the coverage in those 2 or 3 articles would be trivial. Again, go out there and find sources that aren't just quoting him because he has a job/position that puts his role as a mouthpiece. Find stuff where he is being interviewed because HE is notable or that is covering him in a meaningful manner. If you have those sources, let us see them. *I* didn't see anything beyond trivial mentions of him. If I missed something, let me/us know. If there are better sources, let us know. Heck, if there is a source that we can't see because we haven't paid the fee, point it out and let us know what it is about.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Unfortunately I can't see any more of the teaser articles than you can. (Scottish ancestry prevents me from subscribing.) He has been interviewed fielding questions on TV about becoming a candidate. KSTP is mentioned here [33], but longer responses as in full length question-and-answer interviews normally don’t appear in newspaper articles simply because that isn’t their format. He has been on NPR as a Secretary of State candidate[34] and was featured in a magazine Law & Politics.[35] Longer opinion pieces by him have appeared in the press(San Francisco Chronicle Prop 52 )[36] as his take on issues. Some of the online articles are complete and not blips. [37] I do get a sense that notability here is a bit of a moving target. Eudemis (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse: Its a shame that the deletes outweighed the keeps (including my keep !vote), but thus was the consensus. I agree with Eudemis that the guy is clearly notable, as he has been the subject of significant coverage dedicated solely to him, but that's not the inquiry here.--Milowent (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse close appears to be an accurate reading of consensus. This looks like a bit of an "AFD round 2" nomination, honestly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse. (Disclosure: I was the AfD nominator and was unaware of this DRV until now.) Consensus, based on analysis of the sources, was clear. "I believe the article did not included [sic] his current position at the beginning of the AfD discussion" may be so (i.e., his current job was in fact not mentioned in the article), but I mentioned it, with a link to the relevant page on the CIS Web site, in my nomination, so the participants in the discussion certainly were able to take it into consideration. Deor (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Falls of Cruachan derailment (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First off, I don't think the closing admin gave this nearly enough thought, and I believe he merely rushed to close it to avoid drama because the reversal of an earlier non-admin closure had led to an ANI post about the Afd. And on that point, in his closure edit summary he states "lack of deaths has been agreed as not meaning lack of notability". I do not agree that the lack of deaths was the primary subject of the debate, and despite starting out with the words 'non-fatal', the lack of deaths was certainly not my primary reason for deletion, merely a necessary precursor.

Second, my actual deletion rationale centred on WP:EVENT. The article was, and after seven days, still is, a collection of news reports about an incident that was newsworthy, but not notable as defined by EVENT. Precious few of the keep voters seem to understand what the difference is, and are happy to base their votes on the presence of sources that merely exist due to their value to news sources as news. The closing admin has a duty to recognise the consensus inherent in something like EVENT in that regard, and weigh these types of arguments appropriately. In addition to not directly addressing this distinction, it's a simple fact that many of the keep votes were simply variations on a theme of WP:INTERESTING, WP:VALINFO, WP:USEFUL, WP:NOHARM, WP:PRETTY, and even some resembling WP:EVERYTHING, and so again, they should similarly be given the appropriate weight. i.e. not much. So, even at this point in the DRV rationale, it should become clear that anybody calling this result on a simple vote count or a rough calling of consensus, has potentially made a mistake.

Third, in addition to those flawed arguments, several were simply improper violations of WP:CRYSTAL. Such arguments should be discounted immediately in an Afd as being invalid. However, to hammer home the point, it should also be noted that some editor's initial inappropriate predictions that this should be kept because it would go on to be a notable incident due to the apparent failure of the unique Pass of Brander Stone Signals warning system, turned out to be false, as it was quickly confirmed it would not have prevented the incident. Thus we are left with an article on a non-fatal derailment whose sole claim to notability is apparently the newsworthiness of the drama of the incident and the closure of a road. Not compelling, certainly not w.r.t. to EVENT.

Fourth. Some of the keep votes are just blatant violations. Eraserhead for example, said "its actually a well-written article regardless of whether the accident is particularly notable in general". Kiko4564 for example simply said, "This is not a exact news report, it's more of a description of events.". Neither of these are even remotely acceptable as reasons to keep an article, although at least Kiko4564 goes some way to recognising the deletion rationale, even if he doesn't answer it. In that respect, even after the earlier points, as of this stage in the DRV rationale, it becomes beyond clear that any attempt to vote count this Afd and declare an overwhelming keep outcome loses all credibility as far as I'm concerned. A couple of people even voted keep based on the draft guideline Wikipedia:Notability (railway incidents), which is a draft going nowhere. It is stale, verging on rejection. It is presumably not supported by enough people to be promoted to a guideline because it seeks to confer notability on wholly arbitrary terms, and does not seem to gel with EVENT in the slightest. So again, these are simply more invalid keep arguments.

Fifth, this Afd was advertised to railway and Scotland projects. Now, that's not a problem in of itself, but given the number of votes such as, and I quote, "the worst derailment in Scotland this year" from Ggoere, then I am not convinced that this has resulted in a proper and neutral appraisal from editors who otherwise understand what EVENT is all about. It is not unusual for people to look at articles about their chosen field of interest through rose-tinted spectacles w.r.t notability, although to his credit, we at least had one rail specific editor in Quantpole who recognised this phenomenon, and voted delete, and he's been here a while. But its also apparent that a lot of the voters apparently arriving due to the notices look to be very raw and inexperienced editors, which again should be considered by the closer. We don't have a noticeboard where EVENT type Afd's can be advertised, so I think this needs to be taken into account by the closer. And I will simply point out to anyone not aware, that saying 'its important to Scotland' is not as weighty as it sounds, given the fact it has a smaller population than London. And suffice to say, 'important railway incident in London' would get you nowhere at Afd.

All in all, I am struggling to see enough original and valid arguments in that Afd that actually count as valid keep votes, let alone enough that directly address or rebut the deletion rationale, WP:EVENT. Given the fact that every single delete rational invokes EVENT, or its parent NOT#NEWS, I fail to see how 'keep' is a correct reading of the consensus, so it should be overturned to either delete, merge, or at the very least, no consensus, to allow the necessary passage of time to see if the various predictions that this has historic notability, come true.

As a lasting note, due to my natural cynicism for Wikipedia and having seen the success rate of DRVs that require some though in general, I fully expect many people to rock up here and not bother reading, let alone responding, to anything written above, and simply endorse. So if you intend to endorse, at least give the pretence you have read and understood the above. That's all I ask. And if you still don't, I really could care less, because to have that shown on the record is good enough for me, even if the decision is still endorsed. MickMacNee (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I read carefully your detailed rationale and I appreciate the work and thought you have put into it. I apologize for !voting at the AfD after seeing it on ANI and without fully realizing that Wikipedia:Notability (railway incidents) was unlikely to be adopted. Nevertheless I believe the article clearly passes WP:GNG and I therefore endorse the close as keep. --John (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse. My gut instinct, I admit, was "clear WP:NOTNEWS case", but there are a lot of precedents for Wikipedia articles on non-fatal railway collisions. Mick above argues (if I understand correctly) that this is artifically inflated by the "biggest-fish-in-a-small-pond" effect of having happened on Scotland's relatively small railway network, and that we wouldn't have an article on a comparable incident in London. However, that's not the case as there are lots of comparable articles in Category:Railway accidents (Norwood Junction rail accident, Spa Road Junction rail crash, Bexley derailment, King's Cross derailment, all in London, for instance). I recognise that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't per se a valid argument, but there comes a point where the volume of other stuff becomes Wikipedia's custom and practice; I'd argue that we've reached that point, and that this clearly meets both WP:GNG and Wikipedia precedent. – iridescent 21:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse as keep. I fully admitted when I made my original keep !vote that I was at risk of violating WP:CRYSTAL, but I have since been proved correct as the line is not scheduled to re-open till at least 8 June. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 21:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse. I did look again and in more depth at my original decision to vote keep, which I admit I didn't consider too deeply. My reasons to endorse are the original reasons I gave for my keep vote, as well as the following reasons. 1. Rail accidents are rare and more likely to be notable than an accident with a similar level of harm to humans on, for example, roads. 2. The line has been closed for quite a long time and is still closed. Some reports suggest it could be closed for almost another month. 3. It took 5 days to recover the carriages. My instinct is that if it takes more than 100 hours to pickup a train carriage that is quite a big operational disruption, especially if the carriage in question causes the temporary closure of the main access road to a fair sized area, even if that area is sparcely populated. The level of disruption suggests notability to me. 4. The circumstances are worrying, as it seems that a system designed to prevent this type of accident failed to prevent it. Accidents that occur despite specific systems being in place to prevent them are more notable than those that occur where no system is in place. 5. In the light of 4 and the comments of Bob Crow I sense possible future trouble. I am aware of WP:CRYSTAL but given that there is a current safety dispute I feel there is a place for a Wikipedia article for this incident on the basis of current facts, without reliance on any predictions. I would also suggest that this could blow up into something big, given the current dispute on single manning in Scotland, but I know this isn't in strict compliance with Wikipedia policies so isn't strictly a reason. 6. In essence, if I came to Wikipedia to find the facts on this accident and found there was no entry, I would be surprised that fairly disruptive rail accident I heard about on the news wasn't on here. 7. In the past such an accident would most likely have been deadly, and it distorts the record not to record modern incidents. 8. Previous rail accidents on a par with this have entries. This is similar to 1, but is different. 9. Finally, this was not exactly close on numbers and most of the keeps gave reasons over 1 sentence. I am in no small part going Endorse because the admin was right to close this AfD with this decision. Just because you don't like the decision or the reasons people have for going a particular way doesn't change the consensus.Dolive21 (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding 4, it's simply wrong to claim the system was designed to prevent it. It has already been stated by Network Rail it was designed specifically excluding falls from that height. And frankly, Bob Crowe would stick his oar into anything if he thought it would help his cause, I really don't think we can consider him an impartial expert on whether there is or isn't a 'safety dispute' here, and there is no other evidence of any dispute that I can see, just more and more speculation. The rest is covered already, but those positions needed correcting tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There's a lot of alphabet soup to consider in that nomination statement, and I'll take each in turn.

  1) WP:EVENT is a guideline that explicitly allows for occasional exceptions, and I would read that AfD as a strong consensus that the said article should be an exception.

  2) WP:INTERESTING, WP:VALINFO, WP:USEFUL, WP:NOHARM, WP:PRETTY and WP:EVERYTHING are all links to WP:ATA. ATA is an essay that editors are free to disregard, and one may safely assume that a consensus of Wikipedia editors chose to disregard it. They should be at liberty to do so. ATA is essentially a list of things that some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say at AFD, and its logic is in places distinctly shaky. My personal view is that ATA inherently contravenes the fifth pillar anyway.

  3) WP:Notability (railway incidents) is a failed guideline, and here the nominator has a point. !Votes based on this should have been given less weight.

  4) The canvassing argument does not appear strong to me, as the messages seemed tolerably neutrally-worded.

  5) The WP:CRYSTAL argument is a strong and effective one. WP:CRYSTAL as a variant of WP:NOT is a policy. A number of !votes in conflict with this should be disregarded entirely.

  6) I'm surprised that the nominator doesn't refer to the WP:NOTNEWS point that was raised by one IP address and by Mandsford. This seemed exceptionally strong to me, and I think that argument deserved extra weight.

  Overall I'd assess that debate as containing a substantial number of relatively weak arguments on the keep side and two very strong ones on the delete side, and I'm of the view that it might have been better closed as "no consensus". However, we don't usually overturn "keep" to "no consensus" at DRV because of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, so I can only default to endorse.—S Marshall T/C 23:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Just to be clear, there's no allegation of canvassing, I'm just talking about how there is nowhere to go and get people who are interested in EVENT to come and weigh in at Afd, and the very real imho phenomena that rail/Scotland editors are always going to err on one side and not the other in borderline cases, as is actually seen in some of the comments. And on a meta note, I'd be gobsmacked if a proposal to elevate ATA to core policy ever failed. It's only an essay because it is inherently opinion, albeit massively accepted, and I'm sure you won't find it routinely, or even exceptionally, being ignored by closers. If that's happened here specifically, I'd really like confirmation of that, because it really would save me a lot of time in future Afds. MickMacNee (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yes, many !votes in violation of ATA properly should carry no weight, but if you show me a closer who ignores a remark purely because it's an ATA, then he's treating essay as policy, and I'll call for his mop. There are things consensus can't do—no consensus could be strong enough to allow a copyvio, or unsourced defamatory remarks about a living person, for example—but consensus can certainly prevail over essays.—S Marshall T/C 01:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse. I've been thinking for a couple of hours about what to write here in support of why I think this should be endorsed, but S Marshall has, conveniently for me, explained it better than I could. There are very few "invalid" arguments at AfDs. There are then arguments that can be given more or less weight, applying objective standards (eg votes based on clear factual errors, or applying an essay as if it was a policy). There were objectively weak arguments here, but even recognising the weakness of many of the keep votes and the strength of two of the deletes - there just wasn't enough to find a consensus to delete (or, more importantly, enough to find that a "keep" close is outside admin discretion). Disappointing outcome for me because I probably would have sat on the delete side.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse as keep. I have carefully read the comments by MickMacNee but, although some of the reasons given for Keep were flawed, this does not detract from the good reasons that were also given by several reviewers. In any case the incident satisfies standard Wikipedia EVENT guidelines in that this is of lasting significance for railway accident prevention, not just an ordinary derailment that is a transient news event. (I entirely agree that the latter are not notable, and fought a losing battle some years ago to stop such minor incidents being included in the main list of railway accidents. This is a special case, and thus fulfils Wikipedia notability criteria and counters arguments 5 and 6 above). As for the statement that "some editor's initial inappropriate predictions that this should be kept because it would go on to be a notable incident due to the apparent failure of the unique Pass of Brander Stone Signals warning system, turned out to be false, as it was quickly confirmed it would not have prevented the incident" misses the point entirely. There is a known and recognised danger here, and it had been assumed for 130 years that the system would guard against the problem adequately; this now needs to be questioned. The system worked as designed, but it DID fail to prevent the accident, which could have had serious consequences. For anyone who is actually active or interested in the field of railway accidents, this certainly makes it a notable incident. Finally, the view that some voters are "raw and inexperienced editors" must be set against the fact that some voters are certainly long-term and experienced editors who have written significant wiki-articles on related subjects from scratch. I am also disappointed that MickMacNee, in taking the issue to appeal, criticised the decision of the admin and the way it was made, as well as various contributors. Hyperman 42 (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incidentally, Network Rail's statement that the boulder screen was not designed to prevent this type of incident is ingenuous. It was designed (in 1880, long before Network Rail) specifically in conjunction with a second safety precaution; boulders within the screen that looked unsafe were wired back to the screen. It would appear that the latter has been allowed to lapse, possibly with gradual staff reductions over the years (there were originally specially appointed signal watchmen). See John Thomas, p83. So maybe Bob Crowe's comments should not be so lighlty dismissed after all! Hyperman 42 (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Well, I've been working on the assumption that no, based on their comments, that this system was absolutely NOT designed to prevent this incident, falling as it did from below the screen, and yes, while this interests the railway trade press (as does everything and anything, 95% of which is not notable), it's quite different to the claims made in the Afd originally. And again, without any confirmation, it really would be improper analysis to start alleging that a) the boulder below the screen was evidently unsafe and should and would have been wired, and b) it intentionally through negligence, wasn't. Infact, these are serious allegations. And yes, you can argue this might shine a light on it and lead to a review, but again, CRYSTAL, etc. As for EVENT and rail safety, I don't disagree, see the Norwood Junction example for a brilliant EVENT compliant article, but the evidence of lasting significance absolutely has to be post-event, otherwise, we are not encyclopoedia editors, we are journalists. MickMacNee (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That is your assumption, I suggest you consult the original authoritative source which I have given. It is also your assumption that this is only of interest to the railway trade press, and not active historians or professionals involved in safety. Fair comment that my question on whether the boulder should have been wired was speculative - which is why I have simply put it in this talk discussion and not in the main article.Hyperman 42 (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incidentally, while endorsing Keep, I do think that the article as it stands has a lot of news-type information that is not of lasting value, and could be shortened to remove this at a later date. The basic facts and the investigation details (with the RAIB accident report when available) will have more permanent significance. Hyperman 42 (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My assumption is based on contemporary sources. Your assumption is based on your own research using sources that do not refer to this incident. To the extent that forward prediction is even allowable, then one approach is admissable for an Afd argument of whether this incident will become significant or not, the other is simply not, being improper original research. As for safety professionals using Wikipedia? I sincerely hope not. And historians study history, which is why making sure we only cover events of demonstrable historical significance after the event, is a core part of EVENT. MickMacNee (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you are saying that a recent press release should be given maximum weight, but that a quote from a long-established classic book on the subject is "original research" and should be downgraded?! No wonder you have a natural cynicism about Wikipedia if you think that is the way it works! And yes, safety professionals, like all people, do look at Wikipedia, and contribute to it. It is a good way to share one's knowledge with the wider population. Better to be involved and to help to shape the content of articles than to leave it to those with less knowledge! Hyperman 42 (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And if your book, published in what? 1966? Turns out to not be in full posession of the facts from 1966-2010, what then? I think in that situation, it's pretty bloody clear from an OR perspective that a contemporary press release cannot and should not be contradicted or be otherwise downgraded by it. It's valid for background only, and even then, it's specific use needs to be carefully considered, especially if people are editting with the idea that their role on Wikipedia is to educate others using their specific insight, rather than simply write an encyclopoedic article reflecting sources, which is in theory, something anybody can do, because the material should be coming from the sources, not one's own knowledge or analysis. Experts are free to contribute and use Wikipedia, but they hold no special status here, and do not need to, as described below. However, someone who thinks they are an authority on the subject, is obviously at a higher risk of ignoring the provisions in EVENT requiring proof of historic notability after the event. If that's happened here and not been caught, then there has been an error. In a perverse way, I actually hope there is a major, and I mean major, change in the field of railway safety or operations resulting from this incident, because if there isn't, marking this as notable this is a major failure, whichever way it's looked at. MickMacNee (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, someone with a good knowledge of a subject can see immediately whether certain incidents will clearly have a lasting significance. As a trivial example, it was obvious to everyone that the Hudson River plane crash was going to have major historic significance from the moment it happened, even though nobody was killed. Hyperman 42 (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are suggesting that CRYSTAL could be shortcutted on the testimony of experts, that's never going to happen. Wikipedia might be hamstrung by not requiring people to read and understand guidelines like EVENT before they are allowed to vote in an AFD, but it's never going to demand people's credentials before being able to do so - nobody here is ever considered an expert outside of simple policy knowledge, there is no need to be. And I don't know where the Hudson crash came into it, but it is yet another example of an article that would have met EVENT in an instant, because it has been carefully crafted to cater specifically for breaking news, but it is again just another example of an event that was not remotely comparable to this incident. MickMacNee (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse - failing WP:EVENT is given as the reason for deletion. The following are all part of WP:EVENT.

• From WP:EFFECT It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. At the moment, we don't know the long-term effect of the accident.
• WP:GEOSCOPE An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally makes notability more likely, but does not automatically assure it. The accident was reported worldwide, as evidenced by the reference from the Sydney Morning Herald used in the article.
• WP:PERSISTENCE The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance... ...However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable. The accident has been reported on solidly for over a week. If it were a minor derailment with maybe a short mention at the time it happened then I'd agree that it was non-notable.
• WP:DIVERSE Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. I believe that this has been met. The BBC and The Scotsman are the two main sources, but there are plenty of other sources such as First Scotrail, the RMT Union, the Associated Press, the Daily Mail, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency and The Times to name a few.
• WP:BREAKING Many articles on events are created in anticipation of their notability. Anticipation is the creation of an article on a recent event with the expectation that it will meet inclusion guidelines, before the duration of coverage or any lasting effect is certain. Many articles on events are created in anticipation of their notability. Anticipation is the creation of an article on a recent event with the expectation that it will meet inclusion guidelines, before the duration of coverage or any lasting effect is certain. For example, June 22, 2009 Washington Metro train collision was started just 60 minutes after the crash occurred. The rescue operation was still ongoing, an investigation was yet to begin, and the final death toll was unknown. Yes, the article was created with the anticipation that notability would be established later. One has to do this to stand any chance whatsoever of its appearance at WP:ITN. That said, WP:BREAKING also says Articles about breaking news events —particularly biographies of participants— are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. The article was nominated for deletion 2 hours 22 minutes after it was created, clearly in breach of the recommended "few days".
• WP:EVENT is a guideline. It is a well-established principle that WP:V through (many) WP:RS = WP:N. Which brings us to the WP:GNG. The article meets all points under WP:GNG - Significant coverage, Reliable, Sources, Independent of the subject and Presumed. Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• EVENT is a notability guideline, it is a topic specific interpretation of the GNG with direct focus on articles whose sole sources are derived from the news, which is why it is wholly meaningless to say, 'oh well, it doesn't need to meet EVENT because it meets the GNG'. But with regards to EVENT, you have conveniently cherry picked every bit of its wording that supports immediate creation of an article, without remotely listening to its overal message, or the bits you left out. For example, you pluck out the Australian coverage, without clarifying it was a simple news wire reprint, you claim a weeks 'solid reporting' as significance, when it is only because the train isn't cleared yet and really says not one thing about its lasting significance (and I'm dubious as to how solid that was). Moving on, your claim that First Scotrail and the EPA are diverse news sources is, well, innovative, but the section is really talking about demonstrating evidence of plentiful original reporting from actual news sources, and not as above, wire reprints. But by far the most worrying comment is that you created this article so quickly because you have to be fast to get an ITN spot. If that doesn't show where the presumption arrow went in the 'does this meet EVENT yet or not?' thought process, I don't know what does. And to go back to the start, you've simply misrepresented the EFFECT part completely. That section demands evidence of lasting impact, but rightly does not require it for all things, for obvious reasons. It is most certainly not a charter to create first, then wait and see, on simply any and every news event. Some sections you just completely missed out, such as depth, presumably because there just is not any depth of coverage here at all. As for the timing issue, everything that needed to be known was pretty much known at the time of nomination, as was pretty well explained in my original nomination note. MickMacNee (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Depth of coverage - An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The accident already has received significant coverage. The in-depth analysis will come in time - the first of this should be on 16 June when Rail Express is published. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This is a DRV, not AFD2. But to address this as brand new arguments, then unless they bring out a special edition, or devote the entire issue to the incident, then no, for a railway incident, coverage in Rail Express is not what anybody can reasonably consider in depth coverage for the purposes of EVENT. Maybe a full page spread ten years from now, which is more likely if all the predictions of historical significance here come true, but not straight after the incident. And that is in the same way that ongoing general news coverage, for being ongoing news, is not evidence of significant coverage of a news event. MickMacNee (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The speedy creation of the article is entirely within the spirit of WP:BOLD - If you see something that can be improved, improve it!. The improvement I made was the creation of an article where none existed before. Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I am sure the people on the new pages patrol would disagree. I think everybody would agree that notability is the only thing to consider when deciding to create a page or not. Infact, I'm sure this is the first time I've ever even seen BOLD be mentioned in this context. MickMacNee (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Overturn. Clearly fails WP:NOT#NEWS, a policy. Closer vote-counted. Abductive (reasoning) 06:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse; consensus is ultimately the determinant of whether an article passes or fails to comply with some policy of some sort, and it has spoken here. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note WP:TIS, WP:TWP and WP:UKRail informed. Mjroots (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse. I !voted incubate in the AfD because I thought it failed WP:EVENT. The arguments given against this show that not only was consensus against this, but also that there's a serious policy case for keeping the article. As such, the close was correct. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse. There was nothing wrong with the close and this is little more than forum shopping. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I know you are a new admin and everything, but I really really hope this was not a serious comment. Or is your intention here to have a chilling effect, to dissuade people from taking the legitimate steps detailed in WP:DP to allow people to challenge what they see as an erroneous closure? The closing admin certainly never had an issue with me taking this perfectly legitimate step. Infact, I can confidently say that one Afd-Drv cycle is not, and never will be, considered forum shopping, except in the most egregarious cases. If people think that this is an egregarious case, then I will glady retire right now. And if you want to discuss forum shopping, then I would like to know what specialist expertise in deletion review argumentation that members of the Scotland/Railway projects would have, to justify a second solicitation of comments? MickMacNee (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. No one even responded to my comment at the AfD so I'm in a huff. {end sarcasm} A lot of votes seemed to be based on conjecture or personal opinion (thinking warning systems had failed etc), or basically It's Notable type votes. But who's kidding - this was never going to be closed as delete. I would have liked to have seen more reasoning from the closing admin however - preferably based on arguments rather than numbers. Quantpole (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse. Applying such guidelines as WP:NOTNEWS in cases like this is a matter of editorial discretion, since there is really no argument that the GNG has not been met. While I think the consensus determination does not reflect sound editorial judgment, there is no basis for rejecting it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Point of order - NOT#NEWS is policy, the GNG and it's news topics cousin/son EVENT are the guidelines. MickMacNee (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I have not been talking about you all over the shop, MMN. That was one post from one admin to another. I admit that I did have an ITN in mind, but I stand by my assertation that the event itself is notable, meets WP:GNG and I would have created it in any case even had I not had ITN in mind. I understand the reasons why it didn't make ITN and have no issue with its rejection there. Secondly, it is allowed for an editor to make interested parties (i.e. Wikiprojects) aware of discussions by neutrally worded announcements. I believe that my notification of both the original AfD and this DRV discussion are neutrally worded, and therefore not forum shopping. At not point have I stated to any WP that I want editors to comment in any particular way. They are free to make their own decisions based on the arguments presented. As for MMNs arguments about the state of the article, may I respectfully point him towards British Airways Flight 38, which started off in a similar manner, was nominated for AfD as non-notable because "nobody died", and is now in pretty good shape some 2½ years on. Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Some articles are created in a pretty much complete state, while others take time to achieve this. As MMN is so fond of linking to various guidelines etc, here's one for him - WP:STICK. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks for pointing out WP:STICK, Mjroots! It and the related articles gave me some great laughs - it's good to remind ourselves not to take things too seriously! Hyperman 42 (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Well, as said above, you tell me what particular expertise Railway/Scotland editors bring to a DRV discussion that warrants a second notification? Or is it not the case that you are more than happy for this discussion to proceed as Afd Mk 2? Are we likely to see any particularly informed views on whether the closing admin applied correct weighting of opinions and views in that Afd, as you would expect in a DRV discussion, thanks to their special interests, or are we just going to get some of the same views I've described in the review rationale, which if they had been appropriately weighted in the first place, would not have to be solicited twice by you here and now. Those second notifications have as much relevance to this DRV as if you had notified WP:FOOD. I've held off posting this to TALK:EVENT or TALK:DP or any other place where one would actually expect to find such expertise, but it's things like this that make me think I probably should, just to even up what is a pretty obvious disparity between local views here, and site wide views as demonstrated in EVENT. As for comparing my nomination to someone else rather foolishly thinking the first hull loss of a major airliner is not going to be automatically notable, either by EVENT or by simple precedent, well, it's laughable to be honest. Why people don't read you making such innappropriate comparisons, ones which you cannot hope to replicate using either rail incident articles, or a credible and accepted topic specific guideline, and yet can still come away thinking this article has been created on solid grounds, is beyond me. But this DRV is not for discussing this phenomenon, we are notionally here to see whether the closing admin has correctly counted or discounted such views in the Afd. I fear actually for what new precedents or fringe guidelines you are going to try and open up or introduce if this article is kept on such shaky logic, and ultimately whether we will simply see Wikinews stop covering railway incidents all together, certainly British ones, creating a huge systemic bias flaw in the process, thanks to the efficiency of Google News UK (another issue which was raised in the Afd which nobody seems to have picked up, not least the closer), having effectively been disenfranchised. People spent many man-years pouring basic common sense into things like EVENT, but all for nothing I fear, in the face of the existence of BA 38 amazingly. Yes, you can likely make this article a GA, hell, you could possibly even get it FA if you doggedly avoided all the howls of protest and stuck to your guns on the technicalities that it's been kept once at Afd so you can't object now, but we've already been over how non-relevant that is to good old basic encyclopoedic worth in the Afd itself. MickMacNee (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse this article clearly passes WP:N and does not fall under WP:NOTNEWS. As HJ said above this is subtle forum shoping.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 19:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse MMN you need to give it a rest, you're really starting to troll. FinalRapture - † ☪ 21:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse I have wasted half an evening looking at this whole thing and see nothing much wrong with the process of the AfD, and no reason to think the result was flawed. Globbet (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That's more time than the BBC wasted rustling up some original reporting to tell people everything is now back to normal after this incident. I counted 8 new words. That is some sweet gig right there if people honestly think that represents in-depth, significant, persistent, news reporting. I may just apply. MickMacNee (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I would say that the BBC were very sensible then! Always reuse good material rather than reinventing the wheel. Compare that with the thousands of new words and hours of everyone's time spent on this debate... Hyperman 42 (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yes, they know exactly how to run themselves as a news organisation. The irony is lost here though. MickMacNee (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse: Did the closer properly determine the consensus of those participating? Yes, it is was strongly in favor of keeping the article even with some of keep rationales going beyond normal policy considerations. The nomination simply failed to sway those participating.--Milowent (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse: I initially was cautious about supporting keep, and considered the merits of merging into a related article, but I now believe that the incident is worthy of its own article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 12:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse: This was notable enough for there to be enough reliable sources for a good informative article to be written. Edgepedia (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Endorse close appears to be an accurate reading of consensus. This looks like a bit of an "AFD round 2" nomination, honestly (yes that's a quote, but it applies here) Hobit (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  If you can point out a single part of the review rationale that is a deletion rationale, rather than a review rationale, you might have a point. But it is a 100% a review rationale. I'm sorry some people don't like having to answer it, and some people haven't even bothered as predicted, but it's there, and needs to be said and on record for future people who will likely wonder how this managed to survive in 2010 when we have guidelines like EVENT, and how basic opinions like 'sourced, lots of sources' are considered remotely relevant for an article about news events. If you want to discuss the aspect of whether this has descended into Afd2 or not, then you need to look at the actions and comments of a few other people tbh, but certainly not me. MickMacNee (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Fair comment. I think some of your points _are_ AfD2 type stuff (Point 2 in particular is a re-argument if WP:EVENT applies which the AfD seemed to conclude it did not), but even then it is a reasonable issue as part of a DrV. Sorry, up late. I've struck that part of my comment. Hobit (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  No, my point 2 is whether or not the closer recognised that EVENT was the reason for the nomination, given his brief close statement and summary, which didn't leave any indication as to whether he did or not, and thus whether he took proper account of this in assessing the arguments. There really can be no argument that it is intended to apply to this article as an event per its opening sentence - "This guideline is intended to explicate the primary notability guideline with regards to current and past real events, as well as breaking news". If the argument is that it's simply not applicable for some meta-reason, like it's just a guideline not a policy, or IAR, then that's fine, but again, it is down to the closer to say whether that was a large part of his closing of that debate as 'keep per consensus'. It would actually be pretty handy for everyone if the conclusion of this mega-debate is that there is some specific aspect of this incident that means EVENT doesn't apply in that sort of meta-way, and that collective wisdom can somehow be incorporated going forward, to stop future nominations. But I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly have no idea what the conclusion of the various arguments is in that regard, for the various reasons put forward in the review rationale, and I for one would have no qualms about invoking EVENT in a similar Afd, because I'm not seeing where it's been defeated here. MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I understand your point, which is why I felt "it is a reasonable issue for the DrV". That said, the traditional way to overcome WP:Event is to show a breadth of coverage and some of the !votes to keep touched on this. I do agree the closer's statement could, and should, have been expanded. Hobit (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Endorse keep. The strongest argument on the "delete" side is that the subject is a mere news event, and thus fail WP:NOT#NEWS. It is a good argument, and an argument well grounded in policy. However it is not a deal breaker argument. There are numerous "recent" subjects whose presence in Wikipedia is supported, and as long as the article passes the minimum standards of verifiability, neutrality, and previous research and coverage, it is the community, and not a self-appointed AFD closer who should draw the line. AFD closers have some discretion, but they should not let their personal opinion override the community consensus. I cannot see the AFD closer had much choice here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drug Addicts Anonymous (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User requests here that the page text be userspaced so that he can work on it. Kind regards, Captain n00dle\^Talk 12:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: The requesting user was 101Bullets (talk · contribs) please move to his namespace and notify him not me ^_^ Captain n00dle\^Talk 13:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done User:101Bullets/sandbox S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]