- Ashli Babbitt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I'm a little delayed getting to this...because life, but it still needs to be done. I'm concerned with the decision to close this AfD so quickly. Yes, there was a lot of input. But it wasn't anywhere near unanimous or snowing. The AfD only ran a little longer than 24 hours. The closers reasoning that "[...] it does Wikipedia and the community no favors to prolong this, [...]" simply doesn't feel like reason to hasten a close. I feel the community deserves more time to weigh in. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 13:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn and reopen Didn't meet WP:SNOW. This is an extraordinary case, so perhaps having be merged for now but allowing the discussion to continue would be the right choice. I suspect I'd lean toward moving this to an event article or merging--I've not looked closely enough to know. To take a quote I have on my homepage "Taking administrative shortcuts in the name of sensitivity is self-defeating. --SmokeyJoe [1]" Hobit (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, but void - I don't think there was any sense in letting the AfD run - it wouldn't help. That said, the four day old AfD on the topic is clearly extremely out of date, and any attempt at a "permanent" decision at this time is hopelessly foolish. For instance, here's an article in the New York Times that's a few hours old that would go against BLP1E applying; but that question is liable to remain highly fluid for the short term, which is why we see the whole AfD is political partisanship rather than any kind of reasoned examination of the situation. A new article would already not be G4-able, and I'm guessing a new AfD today would be stale by friday as well. 2021 storming of the United States Capitol is already 101k of readable text, so it should be split into smaller articles (and will probably continue to organically grow, necessitating even more). Trying to enforce a merge here, now, is bad encyclopaedia building. Whether to merge is really a question that should be kicked ~six months down the road, when we can answer it honestly as encyclopaedia writers. WilyD 14:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What you have stated is exactly why I said in the AfD that was just simply too close to the event to judge its lasting notability fairly. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 16:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a WP:SNOW situation, but the situation is still rapidly evolving. No action for now; suggest relisting in a couple of weeks. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I think that was a reasonable SNOW close. They don't have to be unanimous, the only requirement is that the outcome should be obvious. This AfD got a very large amount of participation which was overwhelmingly on the side of deleting/redirecting/merging, especially as a number of the keep comments had no merit. The fact that it's a high profile subject where BLP applies doesn't help. I don't see how the NYT article linked above in any way rebuts the BLP1E argument as it covers her in the context of the shooting. Hut 8.5 19:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It provides a fair overview of her entire life. The reason for the coverage was her death. But the coverage itself reaches into a lot of her life. We have her life history in there--plenty to write a bio. She is only known for one thing, but the coverage isn't just about the event, it's about her life. Hobit (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How much we can write about the subject isn't the determining factor, the article still "cover[s] the person only in the context of a single event", which is what BLP1E asks for. The article is going to be very heavily skewed towards the event however we write it because that's the only part of her life which is at all significant. Hut 8.5 21:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I fully understand your point, but disagree with it. First of all, her life, like everyone else's, is significant. It may not be notable, to use Wikipedia's term-of-art, but it is significant. Sorry if I'm being preachy here, and I realize you are also using significance as a term-of-art but I think we should be careful about phrasing when discussing someone where BLP applies for all the standard reasons. But beyond that, if major news sources are covering one person in that level of depth, even it is for one event, then we should be considering having an article on that person--it is pretty good evidence that her role in the event was significant. Is that enough to have an article? I'm leaning against--at least not as a biographical article. But the NYT covering her in that level of depth is evidence that her role is enough to overcome WP:BLP1E. 21:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, then read WP:BLP1E, because it's extremely obvious to anyone even vaguely familiar with it. 1E covers biographies of people covered in the context of one event, not because of one event; that's why we have biographies of Lee Harvey Oswald, Guy Fox, Marc Lépine, John Hinckley Jr. ... because their lives - their biographies - became covered as a result of their involvement in some event. The New York Times article gives context for her life - where she grew up, her employment history, her personal life (relationships like marriages); those are all coverage off her beyond the context of the one event. Now, it's just one article, on it's own it's not necessarily enough to make an outcome obvious, but those are the kinds of things that are indicators 1E doesn't apply. WilyD 06:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is, those individuals are notable for individual acts. She was just that part of an indiscriminate mob that happened to catch a bullet. Sucks to be her, but she isn't notable. --Khajidha (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Contentious early close outwith criteria. Should be reopened so that the procedure can be followed properly, leading to a close that brings some closure. Leave the redirect in place during that discussion though because it's as obvious as a coalpile in a ballroom that, with the present available sources, there shouldn't be an article with that title.—S Marshall T/C 23:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist - A quick closeout in response to rapidly unfolding events is not the way to make decisions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, draw a line under that version, and allow re-creation using sources that are not near-immediate news coverage. My search now reveals sufficient independent reliable sources providing ongoing coverage from an improved perspective. Ongoing coverage provides far more sourced comment than fits in the current redirect target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. 12 hours of discussion cannot justify cutting short a high-participation discussion with strongly argued points on both sides. The closer's determination that the subject was likely to remain a low-profile individual was absurd on its face and been demonstrated to be false by subsequent coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as a frank mess, a violation of WP:SNOW, and a matter of being too soon to the event to comfortably AfD. One could also argue we are too soon to the event to comfortably make this page, at least at the time it was made. But it's several days since now, we know this (at least plausibly) isn't WP:BLP1E (a policy I suspect goes unread by many of the people who quote it), and the original AfD is essentially poisoned. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly was "very soon". With all the sources in the redirected version now being so co-temporary they are now primary sources, I think it much better to allow a fresh re-creation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn It was not a WP:SNOW situation and closing after just 12 hours was incorrect.Did feel WP:RAPID applied here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No action for now. Re-list some time in February. There is some debate about which way BLP1E should apply; those questions should be settled when the coverage settles down. In my view it was WP:TOOSOON for the page to exist. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn This looked like unseemly haste. Having said that, the article should be moved to Death of Ashli Babbitt and will need substantial rewriting. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
|
