Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.7.39.174 (talk) at 11:57, 13 October 2008 (→‎Opal Koboi). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< October 11 Deletion review archives: 2008 October October 13 >

12 October 2008

Opal Koboi

Opal Koboi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I feel quite strongly that consensus was misread in this closure. The closer, Stifle, stated only his closing that "the result was keep" without elaborating as to what that assessment was based on. When I contacted Stifle regarding the close he replied that "You and Hiding were the only delete !voters as against six keeps; there was no other possible closure." However, consensus is not a vote, and the strength and quality of the arguments are supposed to be a major consideration. The nomination and the delete votes were based on the article failing the core policies of verifiability and original research, as well as not establishing notability of the subject. Only one of the keep voters attempted to address these concerns. Both he and I searched for possible reliable sources for the article, and none were found that give siginficant coverage to the subject. 2 of the keep votes' rationales amount to "make the nominator (me) fix the article", when in fact the crux of the arguments was that I and others were unable to fix it, despite good-faith efforts, because no useful sources could be found. I am quite confused at how one could determine a consensus of keep after both the keep and delete voters failed to find any useable sources, and the article quite clearly fails the core policies of V and NOR even after 5 days of discussion and source-searching. IllaZilla (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than simply tallying votes, may I ask how you arrive at that conclusion? --IllaZilla (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - arguments in favor of keeping are all in the "we can find sources, we promise" and "if we delete this we might as well delete this other article too" vein and do not overcome the policy-based arguments in favor of deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own deletion. There was, as I previously said, no other proper closure of this debate. IllaZilla is free to renominate at any stage. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly there was. Deletion. Look at the keep !votes. There are three that cite the notability of the book series, which notability is not inherited by every character in it. Two say keep so that the nominator can fix it, when the nominator notes that exhaustive searches for reliable sources have been fruitless. One says keep because if we delete we might delete other articles as well, which is a bogus argument. The rest are WP:PERNOM. Where is the refutation of the policy-based arguments of the nomination? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:PLOT? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:WAF? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:V? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:N? Four strong policy- and guideline-based arguments versus a bunch of arguments to avoid; there's no rationale for this close other than vote-counting. Otto4711 (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, yes it is. Now that this has been established, I'll ask you again to answer the questions. What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:PLOT? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:WAF? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:V? What specific part of the discussion refutes WP:N? Otto4711 (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess the "witty" response to that is WP:ONLYESSAY, but essays have a purpose on wikipedia (and that's why we allow them), they may not have the force of a policy or guideline but that doesn't mean they are completely without merit or immediately dismissable. There are many areas of wikipedia where a guideline or policy hasn't been established (and in many never likely to be), in those situations we still listen to reasonable argument and that line of argument maybe encapsulated in an essay for easy reference. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The DFenders

The DFenders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

This article satisfies three of Wikipedia's criteria for notability: this band has been nominated for a major music award, has received significant coverage in multiple reliable media sources, and has songs on rotation on major, national radio stations. Many editors called to delete this article simply because they had not heard of this band, rather than take Wikipedia's own criteria into consideration. Dogma inc (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse I checked a cached version, searching for the band myself, looking at the AFD and the band's website. Not signed, no album (according to their website), potential COI. There are only two references that arguably pass WP:RS, and only one that actually focused on the band instead of the controversy of ballot stuffing. It seems the controversy is more notable than the band. In the AFD, it appeared to me that stronger arguments were given to delete. In the end, I can see no abuse in the process, and feel that their conclusion was reasonable. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cached version is severely lacking in references... the most recent one before deletion was notably more in-depth, had significantly more references and information. And what no album? There's no other way they could have been nominated for the award... The album is available from www.realgroovy.co.nz, iTunes, Amazon, dunedinmusic.com, and many more... They also have songs on the nationally broadcast KiwiFM, which is another criteria for notability. And the nomination itself is criteria enough. You may think the peer-voting system devalues the significance of the award, but the band was independently proposed for five categories at the awards (Best Breakthrough Artist, Best Rock Album, Best Album, Best Group, People's Choice), approved as a finalist by RIANZ judges for the People's Choice, and then voted by the fans as one of the five final nominees. You can't just throw any old band into the mix, they still have to be approved as a worthy candidate by official judges. And, the voting 'scandal' created afterwards was sour grapes by one manager who didn't get his band in the top 5... and he's been called on it, and apologized, in reliable sources (see The Christchurch Press, 11/10/08). Even if you discount the coverage as being simply related to the awards, the band's nomination in the first place and their rotation on a national radio station still qualify them as notable by Wikipedia standards. Dogma inc (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a place to point out how the deletion of a page did not comply with the deletion process, not a chance for a second bite at the cherry with a different audience. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say that a lot. In fairness, you should explain to people that they can ask for a userfied version to improve and bring back to mainspace. If you say that bringing back to mainspace requires a DRV, isn't that just a form of AfD for the reworked article? A "second bite of the cherry". Your stance seems logical, but starts to fall apart when examined a bit closer with respect to what is common practice. Carcharoth (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troopergate (Bill Clinton)

DRV incorrectly filed on October 11 under October 6 - moving here instead. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troopergate (Bill Clinton) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I nominated Troopergate (Bill Clinton), an article that about "an alleged scandal involving allegations by two Arkansas state troopers that they arranged sexual liaisons for then-governor Bill Clinton." The article has been on wikipedia for FOUR years and contains two sources, which call the event a manufactured "scandal." Despite the reasons, which I outlined below, it was closed within three hours by the above admin editor (not an admin.) claiming: "The result was Speedy keep, bad faith nom." I want to see if I can get the AFD reopened so my concerns can be addressed. My reasons, expanded here, for the AFD were as follows:

  • 1) The article "Troopergate" is about an "alleged scandal," which in my nomination I noted is dealt in detail with on Paula Jones's page (specifically Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton). I think the article should be deleted, and maybe a redirect there.
  • 2) An article solely about one portion of an alleged series of sexual claims (which were thrown out in court) violates WP:BLP for Bill Clinton. Again, relevant information that complies with BLP is on the Paula Jones page.
  • 3) The title Troopergate, as I mentioned in the original nomination, is inappropriate. The other "Troopergate scandals" do not use troopergate in the title. For instance, there is not a Troopergate Palin article, but it is called Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal despite "Palin's Troopergate" being a headline news story today (it is how I came across this article).

This article should be merged into the PAula Jones article. Apparently "troopergate" is a term that is only being used in a NY tabloid. This doesn't merit another article, and the term should not be used by Wikipedia to describe this. Wikipedia is not the place to showcase novel neologisms.[1]

  • 5) I just noticed in 2006 another editor noted: "the content was a subset of jones, and the notability is because of jones." He too thinks the material does not deserve an article independent of Jones.

In response to the AFD was two replies. One included claiming the AFD was "bad faith" because it is "more than notable and sourced and is not replaced by the current Alaska incident." Such remarks, show misunderstanding of my concerns and nomination: 1) It has TWO in-line sources over the last four years and 2) I did not call anywhere for the article to "replace" the Alaska incident. Thus, I believe these are legitimate concerns for an AFD, which was prematurely closed. We66er (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV template added to the article. Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The close was premature and should not have been called "bad faith" (closer, you jumped the gun), but this should stand. First of all, you never really gave a valid deletion reason. This incident was more than significant enough to receive a separate article. As for your points: 1) Simply because it is "alleged" doesn't warrant a deletion. It was still widely reported on. 2) It does not violate WP:BLP because the statements have a source (but could be sourced better), are true, and the article never claims he actually did anything anyways, only that they were alleged. 3) If you don't like the title, come up with a better one. That's not a deletion reason. The article needs more and better sources. But there is no reason to delete and this should have been brought up for discussion, not deletion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UsaSatsui, you misunderstood my first point. Above I wrote "Troopergate" is "dealt in detail with on Paula Jones's page (specifically Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton)." The Jones v.Clinton section deals with the allegations and subsequent lawsuit in much more detail. We66er (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point about the "alleged" actions were they are presented in a POV. I am not the only one concerned about the way in which one of the trooper's claims violate BLP. Again, my point was this is better presented on the Jones article since it is about that event and does not need an independent article. We66er (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. this is a scandal that is rooted in american history. it should be kept in Wikipedia.Degrassi. 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What does "Troopergate" deal with that isn't or can't be explored at Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton? The Jones' piece covers the allegations and failed lawsuit. We66er (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Closed I suggested a speedy keep in the original AFD, and questioned the nom's motives in a more colorful and indirect manner. The nomination itself DOES appear to be biased, in my opinion, and in the opinion of others. Personally, I would have waited for one more 'keep' and worded the summary differently, but the net result would have been the same. The only "crime" here is being too blunt (ie: honest) in summing up the conclusions that we participants had already drawn and clearly stated. I have worked with Hammer a little, and I'm confident he is smart enough to see that it would have been better to choose a more neutral closing statement and wait for another 'keep' or two. This was a gut judgement call on his part, and most experienced editors have made similar calls before (for better or worse), so I don't question his motives. As for the nomination itself, my original statement stands without modification. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time Hammer's been accused of "jumping the gun" on AFDs: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TenPoundHammer_6#Oppose. Read the 54 opposing comments and 18 neutral comments for examples of that. In fact, his closures and behavior seems to the be the crux of his six RFAR failures. Nonetheless, you question me when other editors have the same concerns about the article. I would appreciate if you focus on the content and not level further accusations. We66er (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This forum isn't for discussing RFA's either. My focus and the entire purpose of this forum is to discuss the process of closing the AFD, not the content of the article, as I have tried to explain to you above. This is degrading into a personal attack against TenPoundHammer rather than a review of an AFD, which will not be tolorated. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You brought up your experience with Hammer so I cited other people's AFD experience/complaints with him. I have not attacked anyone. As I wrote to you above: I would appreciate if you focus on the content and not level further accusations. We66er (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you apologized on my talk. For the record, I never said there weren't sources. I wrote that it has no notablity outside of Paula Jones or Jones v Clinton. A glance at Google News 1994 for "Troopergate Clinton" shows the 87 hits are about Jones (or Brock's article about Jones). We66er (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that those sources are enough for an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They all are about Paula Jones, which later became the Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton case. As I asked above, what are in those sources that is not covered or relevant to Jones or Jones v Clinton? If this can be explained then there are two issues and thus, a point to having two articles. We66er (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Deletion Review#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review states: "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question." This forum is an opportunity to correct errors in process relating to an AFD/deletion/keep. This is not the place to discuss content of an article. I have tried to politely say this twice previously. This is not a 2nd AFD. Please keep it on topic. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to an inaccurate concern made by the person who prematurely closed the AFD. If that person closed the AFD on that misunderstanding then it is relevant to this discussion. You can stop commenting on the DRV purpose, it is understood. We66er (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and reclose as keep without the assumption of bad faith. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the concerns about whether or not this should be a separate article should probably be addressed in a merge discussion. Someone could be bold and carry out a merge and see if it sticks. But maybe not right now. Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. I am tempted to suggest a relist since 3 hours is awfully fast for even a speedy keep and the accusation of bad faith was unwarranted but there is no point in reopening it so it can be speedy closed again in 22 hours by an admin. Therefore, my recommendation is to slap TenPoundHammer and his otters with some trout and leave the close as is. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and reclose as speedy keep a snow keep will obviously be the conclusion no matter who does it, but I see the point of Stifle's suggestion above, to remove the "bad faith" from the record. Apart from that inappropriate wording, --admin or non-admin it would have been a little fast for the circumstances; over-rapid closes typically are counterproductive, because they just result in long discussions here. I suggest that perhaps in order to prevent drift into worse problems, we consider asking Hammer not to make any XfD closes at all, or as a minimum and speedy XfD closes. There are enough other people to do them. DGG (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Severely troutslap Hammer for a really lousy closing statement, one that seemed certain to escalate rather than defuse any conflict, and consider a merge. I've begun the discussion at Talk:Paula Jones#Merge. Chick Bowen 03:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this is an undeniably notable event and an article that provides sources to support the claim. While there might -- repeat, might -- have been an issue if there were no sources whatsoever in the article, the reliable and verifiable sources support the claim of notability and the close appears to be fully within process. The Wikipedia gold standard that articles and the statements therein backed by reliable and verifiable sources are retained is one that needs to be respected. Alansohn (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I, the original nominator, want to let everyone here know that I have since proposed merging the article with Clinton v. Jones or renaming, the issues in my nomination, at Talk:Troopergate_(Bill_Clinton)#Renaming. When I did that, the "speedy keep" is thrown in my face by User:Pharmboy (who has four posts in this DRV and one in the AFD). This is really tiresome, I thought if the other Troopergates don't use that name in the article title neither should this. What makes it even more compelling is all the information was at Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton which makes the article redundant. This is very disappointing. We66er (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That didn't look "thrown in your face" to me. It appeared to be merely a mention of it. And just because it is mentioned in the Paula Jones article doesn't mean there can't be an article on a specific incident that goes into more detail. For example, staying with the "Troopergates", the "Palin Troopergate" scandal is mentioned in Palin's article...I'm not seeing any suggestion for a merge there. Or the OJ Simpson murder case has it's own article, but also get a mention in the Juice's page. You need to convince people this event is insignificant enough to not warrant a separate article. And, to be blunt, you're not doing that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically the Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton contains the Clinton-Troopergate article. Everything about Troopergate has relevancely in Jones_v._Clinton. It's the reason she filed the lawsuit (to set the record straight after she said Brock defamed her)! As I asked above and in the AFD that was closed: What can be covered in troopergate that is not covered or relevant in the Jones (or subsection-Jones v Clinton) article? It's all about her. No one explained how troopergate is separate from Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton or how troopergate- the pejorative term from David Brock, complies with NPOV for a article title. My two issues in the first AFD. We66er (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC) We66er (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and reclose as speedy keep I may have been hasty with my claim of 'bad faith' with my first vote, and that may have contributed to the line of votes following and the closing decision by TPH, who is someone I look up to in the AfD process. But as I read it when I chose to speedy keep, it read as if the nominator was objecting to this case at the expense of the Palin version of Troopergate, and I was trying to say that the notability of this event is not trumped just because of the newer Troopergate, so I thought the nomination was not neutrally stated. I apologize to We66er for my bad faith claim and in hindsight I could have stated my argument in another way. However I feel that no matter the case, the article should be kept because it can be sourced, and no matter the possilbility of untruth with those involved, they did get media attention that was notable. Nate • (chatter) 05:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_October_12&oldid=244972833"