Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 10: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:13, 15 March 2022

< 2022 March 9

Deletion review archives: 2022 March

2022 March 11 >

10 March 2022

Jessica Foschi

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Perhaps I misspoke--the Scholar search has more ongoing coverage than News, hence 'ongoing coverage' may be better characterized as academic legal discussion rather than news. A quick look through the history shows that most of the uncited bibliographic information was added by the article creator, Johnskrb2, who has a low but nonexistent level of Wikipedia activity; it's possible that editor had access to sources that are no longer visible. Regardless, if NSWIM existed, would Ms. Foschi meet it? Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, doubtless she would: none of our sports notability guidelines are sane. Fortunately we don't have to wrestle with such a guideline in this case. The "academic legal discussion" to which you refer is all about her doping case, so it's a black letter case of BLP1E (specifically its first limb). Of course you personally wrote WP:WIALPI so you're well qualified to make your own assessment of whether she's a low-profile individual.—S Marshall T/C 11:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the credit; it's genuinely appreciated. Yes, the various press doesn't make her a high profile individual--Getting listed on PWC's website once, writing a cited academic paper in law school, alumni awards... relatively routine ongoing coverage, really, not tied to the 1E in question. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is ongoing press, and it was mentioned and added to the article by DaffodilOcean [1] during the deletion discussion: Baumbach, Jim (2007-06-10). "Beyond the FIGHT: Ten years after being exonerated from a positive test for steroids, Jessica Foschi has graduated from law school". Newsday (Nassau Edition). p. 70. Retrieved 2022-03-03. Beccaynr (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DaffodilOcean also added: Nafziger, James A. R. (2002). "Dispute Resolution in the Arena of International Sports Competition". The American Journal of Comparative Law. 50: 161–179. doi:10.2307/840875. ISSN 0002-919X. during the AfD [2], and this source, in a subsection titled "The Foschi Case" describes the case as "celebrated" (at 162) and then focuses on Foschi, her swimming career, her actions within the proceedings, as well as the procedural history, with analysis about the significance of the case (at 162-164). From my view, if we relist, this type of source could be more clearly articulated both as support for WP:GNG and against deletion per WP:BLP1E. Beccaynr (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DaffodilOcean also added: Hahn, Alan (28 March 1999). "Water Under the Bridge". Newsday (Suffolk Edition). p. 114. Retrieved 2022-03-03. [3], which is an in-depth profile of Foschi that includes biographical, career, and education information in addition to looking back at what the article describes as a "19-month ordeal". Beccaynr (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DaffodilOcean also added: Rosen, Daniel M. (2008-06-30). Dope: A History of Performance Enhancement in Sports from the Nineteenth Century to Today. ABC-Clio. pp. 91–93. ISBN 978-0-313-34521-0. [4], which discusses "the story of Jessica Foschi's ordeal", the impact on the sport, and adds context (at 91-93). Beccaynr (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DaffodilOcean also added this textbook: Weiler, Paul C. (2015). Sports and the law : text, cases, problems. Internet Archive. St. Paul, MN : West Academic Publishing. p. 1141. ISBN 978-1-62810-161-4. [5], which discusses what it describes as an "incident" that "put an intriguing twist on the role of national tribunals in overseeing the rules and decisions of international sports federations." (at 1182) It then discusses the procedural history (1182-1183) before describing her law review note on the general issues, not her own experience, as "impressive". There is additional context for her case at 1199. Beccaynr (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr, let's take each one of those sources in turn.
This one is fundamentally about the doping accusation. It does tell us a few details about what Ms Foschi has done since but it's all very much low-profile-individual stuff: graduating from law school, taking her bar exam, publishing her one and only scholarly article, unsuccessfully trying out for the Olympics in 1996, 2000 and 2004. It also gives us quite a few details about how the authorities have got better at dealing with doping accusations since and it quotes Ms Foschi about doping. I cannot see any evidence that there has been any other significant incident or event so I can't see how it qualifies as "ongoing coverage".

This one is about sports law. It discusses the one case for which Ms Foschi is noted. To call this "ongoing coverage" is simply false.

This one is still fundamentally about the doping accusation. It gives other details of her life but it's all very much low-profile-individual stuff: college freshman, at that time; spent the past weekend at home; doing some competitive swimming, but, and I quote: "The championships, hosted by US Swimming, are more of an excuse to extend her spring break, Foschi admitted." It then says she was one of three people from her club to make the national junior swimming team, came second in the 800 metres in some national swimming trials, and then the doping allegations followed by how she's recovering from them now. I cannot see any evidence that there's been any other significant incident or event so I can't see how it qualifies as "ongoing coverage".

This one is purely about the case and I put it to you that anyone who says it's about Foschi or her swimming career is misrepresenting it -- recklessly or wilfully.

This one is paywalled and not in my library but it's a sports law text. I do not believe for one moment that it contains useful biographical information about Jessica Foschi.
Finally, I want to say that now we've pinged every single user who !voted keep to summon them to this DRV, this is no longer in any meaningful sense a disinterested review of what happened.—S Marshall T/C 00:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I ctrl-F'd Oaktree b and Cranloa12n, who both !voted keep, and did not find them pinged in this discussion (until now), and it seems appropriate to ping KidAd, who also participated, as well as Uncle G, who both participated in the AfD and is discussed here. I have not taken a position on this deletion review, and my interest is in contributing to the discussion, where you characterize me and others as liars. However, based on your clarifying comments, it appears we have a good faith policy and source dispute, one that I think can be addressed by reviewing the sources, including those that chronicle her swimming career as it continued during the various proceedings related to the doping allegations, as well as afterwards. From my view, "ongoing coverage" includes sources that are published after the initial burst of news related to the event, including as discussed in WP:BLP1E, which is why I specifically used the word "persistent" in my AfD comment, because that refers to the significance of the event, i.e. The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.

There were a complex, heavily-covered set of cases that appear to be significant both for the sports world and sports law, based on sources that found it worthy of in-depth analysis and discussion years later. Foschi was also found to be worthy of notice afterwards, in sources that provide biographical coverage, continued to cover her swimming career, and a textbook that finds her law review "impressive." Our subjective opinion about what is useful biographical information does not appear relevant to how these sources allow us to develop an standalone article about her, her swimming career, the significant proceedings related to the doping allegations and her substantial and well-documented role, and what she did afterwards, including Olympic trials, law school, and becoming an attorney. All of this, including the source descibing it as her ordeal, is about what she did - it is part of her biography. The continued insistence that there is 'reckless or willful' misrepresentation happening seems unnecessary and unhelpful for a discussion about content. Beccaynr (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relist' With aout any assumptiotions of how the discussion would go, it would be fairer to relist. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per DGG. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the close is a reasonable judge of consensus. On one hand I can see the relist argument - on the other hand, there'd been 6 days without barely a comment when it was closed. Nfitz (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Really nothing wrong with the closure. The keep !votes explained that the person meets SIGCOV. So they're good enough. A relist is pointless IMV since the consensus is clear. SBKSPP (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not all AfDs are about notability. In this case the basis of the nomination was WP:BLP1E. Where in the discussion was that disproven or refuted?—S Marshall T/C 08:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was refuted by the very last person to "vote" - who was User:Beccaynr, on March 4. No one challenged that in the next 6.5 days - not even yourself, who did in that time comment to someone else about peer-reviewed sources. Nfitz (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly be accused of bludgeoning if I responded to everything I objected to; it was needful to let some things slip.—S Marshall T/C 23:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, it is less appropriate to then refer to me as a liar only in this discussion, including without adding a notice to the article per the DR instructions so I could have an opportunity to respond. I have tried in my comments above to respond to the concerns you now raise, based on sources that were in the article during the AfD. Beccaynr (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or relist Counting the unbolded case for not keeping, I don't see a consensus here that BLP1E was not applicable, which the keep close implies, and there were several concerns about the nature of the keep arguments in general, including that its proponents weren't diligent enough or even that they "lied". The latter is a serious charge; the discussion should be relisted so these objections can be properly addressed, or closed as no consensus since they weren't. Avilich (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion may be in order with a view to merging, redirecting, or refocusing the article, but there wasn't anywhere near a consensus to delete. Probably not a great case study of a non-admin close, and the closer should possibly be reminded that contentious cases should be left to administrators. But caveats aside, endorse. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was originally at endorse, but I think relist is probably ideal. The ongoing coverage appears to really be just this: [6] and her own work. If that's true, this probably is a BLP1E thing and the article should be an event article, not a BLP. If there is more ongoing coverage, it should be added to the article. It may well be some of it is just behind paywalls (which I could get past if I were at work). But I think further discussion is worthwhile. If this is relisted, then relisting should ask for further discussion specifically about BLP1E and ongoing coverage. Hobit (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing has changed, despite the loud and rather extensive protests of a few voters here. She's notable for all reasons cited previously. It's great that she's turned her life around, but her past is her past, I don't see the issue with presenting it in a scholarly context, no matter how shameful it might be; to be blunt, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. If that's one of the reasons that helps your notability here, so be it. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 *A discussion may be in order with a view to merging, redirecting, or refocusing the article, but there wasn't anywhere near a consensus to delete. Probably not a great case study of a non-admin close, and the closer should possibly be reminded that contentious cases should be left to administrators. But caveats aside, '''endorse'''. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 18:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 *I was originally at endorse, but I think '''relist''' is probably ideal. The ongoing coverage appears to really be just this: [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/96819900/newsday-10-june-2007/] and her own work.  If that's true, this probably is a BLP1E thing and the article should be an event article, not a BLP.  If there is more ongoing coverage, it should be added to the article.  It may well be some of it is just behind paywalls (which I could get past if I were at work). But I think further discussion is worthwhile.  If this is relisted, then relisting should ask for further discussion specifically about BLP1E and ongoing coverage. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 16:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' nothing has changed, despite the loud and rather extensive protests of a few voters here. She's notable for all reasons cited previously. [[User:Oaktree b|Oaktree b]] ([[User talk:Oaktree b|talk]]) 14:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' nothing has changed, despite the loud and rather extensive protests of a few voters here. She's notable for all reasons cited previously. It's great that she's turned her life around, but her past is her past, I don't see the issue with presenting it in a scholarly context, no matter how shameful it might be; to be blunt, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. If that's one of the reasons that helps your notability here, so be it. [[User:Oaktree b|Oaktree b]] ([[User talk:Oaktree b|talk]]) 14:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)