Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 10

10 March 2022

Jessica Foschi

Jessica Foschi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as "keep", and I invite you to consider whether that was an accurate reflection of the consensus. —S Marshall T/C 13:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn to Relist I could conceivably see this relisted to see if there was additional thoughts about the 1E question, largely because one editor did not express a bolded comment. And this was not a clear case for a non-admin closure since the discussion had four people supporting keeping the article and three people suggesting deletion. This feels more controversial than looking at bolded comments alone. That said, I don't see how the discussion will turn out differently with a relist. --Enos733 (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse as a good keep and a good NAC. One PERNOM support in the face of a preponderance of reasoned, policy-based disagreement doesn't need a relist. The original argument wasn't inherently bad or unreasonable... it just failed to garner any reasonably articulate support, despite the back and forth. Relisting would be improper, as consensus from that discussion was clear. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Further, the nom admits during the discussion that it would be reasonable to cover this person in another article. A keep outcome is not a barrier to a rename or merge discussion, just the community declining to mandate any such outcome. It would be reasonable to start such a proposal to refocus the article, and I am not opposed to the PEREN idea of reinaugurating AfD as Articles for Discussion... but on the question of keep vs. delete, the keep outcome prevailed. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  No I didn't. I said it would be reasonable to cover the event, which is not the same thing. Ms Foschi is now an attorney at Price Waterhouse Cooper and the author of this rather useful scholarly article on doping in sport, but we Wikipedians have wronged her by permanently associating her name with the occasion when she was internationally banned from swimming at the age of 15, and we shouldn't do that.

  Is the problem here that Uncle G didn't preface his contribution to the debate with a word in bold?—S Marshall T/C 18:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm mystified, honestly. Yes, this was initially negative coverage that got ongoing press, and now post-vindication has given her purpose in life making sure that no one else is ever wronged like she was. We should now memory hole it because it was a bad thing that happened to a minor a couple of decades ago who is now an attorney? Wikipedia did not exist when this happened. We are not feeding a meme or news cycle, but recording a past event in a way that, per my reading, seems pretty favorable to the subject, and likely a ton more charitable than the contemporary press was, given our hindsight. So why not include the article you found as a "the rest of the story" bit to cap off the biography, rather than seeking to delete it? And yes, Uncle G participated in the discussion but apparently chose to remain uncounted; I do it on a regular basis when I see an issue worth comment but don't have a strong opinion on the right outcome. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Where has she got ongoing press, though? The "keep" side made this claim several times but the thing is: they lied, and they were called out on this lie during the debate. Jessica Foschi has not been the subject of any ongoing coverage at all. We have no source for any biographical information about her whatsoever. And I very much join issue with you on this idea that the lack of a word in bold means you don't have a strong opinion. Closers are asked to evaluate the strength of the arguments, not count the words in bold. If your argument is a killer then that ought to be apparent from what you write, and no closer should allow words in bold to cloud their evaluation of that argument. I put it to you that Uncle G's view is neither ambivalent nor weakly expressed. It's as plain as day to anyone who reads it, and his takedown of the keep side's lies is both incisive and final.—S Marshall T/C 04:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)