http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_23#Cryst...
The article was deleted, and at least one ex-admin is rather vociferously stating that it was due to BLP concerns, such as, "Consensus does not govern Biographies of living personshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons." However, doesn't the decision *if* something violates BLP subject to consensus? Without getting into the specific merits of THIS article, as this also relates to the current Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom about the QZ/Little Fatty BLP issue:
Who gets to make 'final' decisions on whether an article violates BLP, to merit deletion? Certainly, any admin can delete anything, but any and all actions on-wiki are subject to community review and summary overturn if they are found to be violating established and widely *accepted* community standards. If some are trying to establish a new precedent here, that's fine, but could they also please encode this new change in policy to see if they do in fact have the wide support of their administrative and community peers?
Deleting stuff for BLP (the idea, again, not inherently bad if it's a pure hatchet job as *agreed to* by your peers upon widespread review), and then fighting tooth and nail in a backwater virtual ghetto like Deletion Review is not the right way to do things. Be bold and put it on WP:BLP that an admin can delete an article failing given thresholds of the BLP policy. Let's say what a wider group of admins and editors have to say!
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 23/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_23#Cryst...
Hah. I was going to post this one myself earlier. (I deleted the article. See my talk page for fun on the subject. It's a group of editors who can't distinguish between an encyclopedia and investigative journalism.
The article was deleted, and at least one ex-admin is rather vociferously stating that it was due to BLP concerns, such as, "Consensus does not govern Biographies of living personshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons." However, doesn't the decision *if* something violates BLP subject to consensus?
Not when "consensus" means "ten partisans voting 'bugger the rules' on a page somewhere."
Who gets to make 'final' decisions on whether an article violates BLP, to merit deletion?
We have a really harsh BLP policy for good, long and painful reason. But this question could do with addressing, so I flagged it as a matter of concern in the QZ arbitration.
The question is that both views are important. But is there any way to reconcile them?
- d.
I'm having trouble understanding why a redirect does not exist at [[Crystal Gail Mangum]], though. It's probably accurate to say that nothing notable about the woman's role in the Duke scandal is not findable in our article about that scandal, and that nothing else about her life is notable and she is not someone who chose to be in the public eye.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
I'm having trouble understanding why a redirect does not exist at [[Crystal Gail Mangum]], though. It's probably accurate to say that nothing notable about the woman's role in the Duke scandal is not findable in our article about that scandal, and that nothing else about her life is notable and she is not someone who chose to be in the public eye.
I don't think that's accurate at all. I don't know where you live, but this has been a Big Deal in the States.
-Jeff
On 5/23/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I don't think that's accurate at all. I don't know where you live, but this has been a Big Deal in the States.
I'm a British citizen resident in Southern California, FWIW.
I know the Duke lacrosse players scandal has been a big deal for quite some time, especially after the dismissal of all charges, and this woman is at the center of it (being the accuser).
However, IMO, it's the scandal that's a big deal, not this woman herself; everything truly worthwhile to note about her life is connected to the Duke case. Is there anything really important about her that would be off topic on the article on the Duke case? I'm not convinced.
-Matt
On 5/23/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I'm having trouble understanding why a redirect does not exist at [[Crystal Gail Mangum]], though. It's probably accurate to say that nothing notable about the woman's role in the Duke scandal is not findable in our article about that scandal, and that nothing else about her life is notable and she is not someone who chose to be in the public eye.
-Matt
Does [[Martin Bryant]] have any real significance outside the [[Port Arthur massacre ]]? or [[Seung-Hui Cho]] outside the VT shootings?
On 5/23/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Does [[Martin Bryant]] have any real significance outside the [[Port Arthur massacre ]]? or [[Seung-Hui Cho]] outside the VT shootings?
IMO no, at least in the case of the latter. On the other hand, Seung-Hui Cho is dead.
However, I suspect that IN TIME it will be appropriate to have articles on these people, because biographies of them will be written. I suspect the same MAY be true of the Duke accuser.
-Matt
On 5/23/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
IMO no, at least in the case of the latter. On the other hand, Seung-Hui Cho is dead.
However, I suspect that IN TIME it will be appropriate to have articles on these people, because biographies of them will be written. I suspect the same MAY be true of the Duke accuser.
We frequently write articles about people without biographies. Or are you going to argue for the deletion of every article on Olympic athletes, lower division footballers or back bench MPs?
On 5/23/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
We frequently write articles about people without biographies. Or are you going to argue for the deletion of every article on Olympic athletes, lower division footballers or back bench MPs?
No. On the other hand, few of these are in the situation of [[Crystal Gail Mangum]] where their useful content is largely duplicating that of another article.
-Matt
geni wrote:
Does [[Martin Bryant]] have any real significance outside the [[Port Arthur massacre ]]? or [[Seung-Hui Cho]] outside the VT shootings?
Does [[Jonathan Papelbon]] have any real significance outside of the [[Boston Red Sox]]? Does [[The Edge]] have any real significance outside of [[U2]]?
-Jeff
On 23/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Does [[Jonathan Papelbon]] have any real significance outside of the [[Boston Red Sox]]? Does [[The Edge]] have any real significance outside of [[U2]]?
Yes to the second one. HTH!
- d.
The article was deleted, and at least one ex-admin is rather vociferously stating that it was due to BLP concerns, such as, "Consensus does not govern Biographies of living personshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons." However, doesn't the decision *if* something violates BLP subject to consensus? Without getting into the specific merits of THIS article, as this also relates to the current Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom about the QZ/Little Fatty BLP issue:
While consensus may govern the decision of whether or not something violates BLP, consensus is not the same as majority. The admin should look at the reasons given. If the reasons are compatible with policy, then fair enough, otherwise they can and should be ignored and the article deleted anyway. If the reasons basically boil down to disagreeing with the policy than they should be ignored and told to go and debate the policy in the usual fashion. The consensus that determined the policy takes precedence over the consensus on a single article since (generally speaking) more people were involved in the former.