Revision as of 15:07, 30 May 2007 editDonald Albury (talk | contribs)Administrators61,861 edits no personal attacks← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:00, 5 June 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
(44 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude> | |||
<noinclude><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px"> | |||
{| width = "100%" | |||
⚫ | |- | ||
! width=20% align=left | <font color="gray"><</font> ] | |||
! width=60% align=center | ]: ] | |||
! width=20% align=right | ] <font color="gray">></font> | |||
⚫ | |} | ||
</div></noinclude> | |||
===]=== | ===]=== | ||
<!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. | <!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. | ||
Line 12: | Line 5: | ||
ADD A NEW ENTRY BELOW THIS LINE IN THE FORMAT: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ --> | ADD A NEW ENTRY BELOW THIS LINE IN THE FORMAT: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ --> | ||
⚫ | {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | ||
====]==== | |||
⚫ | |- | ||
⚫ | :{{la|Yirmumah}} < |
||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | |||
* ''']''' – Deletion endorsed, still lacks multiple reliable sources – ] 08:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC) <!--*--> | |||
|- | |||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the ] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' | |||
|- | |||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | |||
⚫ | :{{la|Yirmumah}} <kbd>(</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks"></span><kbd>|</kbd>]<kbd>)</kbd> | ||
popular ongoing comic strip and independent print comic since 2003 by the creator D.J. Coffman who is also the winner of the first Comic Book Challenge put on by NBC and Platinum Studios. Yirmumah has also been featured in Wizard Magazine's "Edge" series as well as been critically reviewed by sites like Newsarama. Yirmumah is also a featured comic of the new Cracked Magazine. The creator of is also well known for helping other webcomic creators in making money with their online content and many creators have used the information available at yirmumah.net/make_money A simple websearch for Yirmumah will also yield several other notable sources in popular culture, as many of Yirmumah's comics are featured in other media, including "The Taylor Hicks Drinking Game" and "Things not to say to Darth Vader at the Imperial Water Cooler" - Please put the article back up. Thanks! - ] 22:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | popular ongoing comic strip and independent print comic since 2003 by the creator D.J. Coffman who is also the winner of the first Comic Book Challenge put on by NBC and Platinum Studios. Yirmumah has also been featured in Wizard Magazine's "Edge" series as well as been critically reviewed by sites like Newsarama. Yirmumah is also a featured comic of the new Cracked Magazine. The creator of is also well known for helping other webcomic creators in making money with their online content and many creators have used the information available at yirmumah.net/make_money A simple websearch for Yirmumah will also yield several other notable sources in popular culture, as many of Yirmumah's comics are featured in other media, including "The Taylor Hicks Drinking Game" and "Things not to say to Darth Vader at the Imperial Water Cooler" - Please put the article back up. Thanks! - ] 22:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
* '''Endorse'''. No evidence of failure in the AfD, nothing new to consider. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | * '''Endorse'''. No evidence of failure in the AfD, nothing new to consider. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*'''Overturn'''. I can't judge the status of Platinum Studios, but if the contest was also run by a local NBC studio, it's not your run of the mill contest. The fact he won was mentioned in the . That one source may not be enough to back up everything in the article, but at least it's enough to convey the artist's notability (which opens up the option of merging all his comics to a page about him and his work). - ]|] 11:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Overturn'''. I can't judge the status of Platinum Studios, but if the contest was also run by a local NBC studio, it's not your run of the mill contest. The fact he won was mentioned in the . That one source may not be enough to back up everything in the article, but at least it's enough to convey the artist's notability (which opens up the option of merging all his comics to a page about him and his work). - ]|] 11:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*'''Overturn''' I agree with ] - - ]]</small></sup></font> 11:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
|- | |||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the ] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' | |||
⚫ | |} | ||
⚫ | {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | ||
====] (closed)==== | |||
⚫ | {| class=" |
||
|- | |- | ||
Line 32: | Line 36: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | ||
:{{la|Image:Northern ireland national football team logo.jpg}} < |
:{{la|Image:Northern ireland national football team logo.jpg}} <kbd>(</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks"></span><kbd>|</kbd>]<kbd>)</kbd> | ||
I believe fair use applies for inclusion of this image in the articles ] and ]. --] 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | I believe fair use applies for inclusion of this image in the articles ] and ]. --] 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
Line 40: | Line 44: | ||
|} | |} | ||
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
====] (closed)==== | |||
⚫ | {| class=" |
||
|- | |- | ||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | ! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | ||
Line 50: | Line 53: | ||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | ||
:{{la|Enchanted Forest Water Safari}} < |
:{{la|Enchanted Forest Water Safari}} <kbd>(</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks"></span><kbd>|</kbd>]<kbd>)</kbd> | ||
Unnecessary deletion I created this page and found it deleted; I did not enter enough information initially, so I went back and found non-partisan sources and generated detailed information about the topic. I found that the page had been repeatedly deleted by user Mhking, who stated that I did not cite third-party sources. Although my page did cite third-party sources, I cited to Mhking other pages (such as Six Flags Theme Park) that do not cite sources, but were warned rather than deleted. I am from central new york and have no vested interest in Enchanted Forest, but wish to participate in Misplaced Pages in a meaningful manner. I would like the opportunity to finish the page and provide useful information about this and other topics. Thank you for your time. ] 01:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | Unnecessary deletion I created this page and found it deleted; I did not enter enough information initially, so I went back and found non-partisan sources and generated detailed information about the topic. I found that the page had been repeatedly deleted by user Mhking, who stated that I did not cite third-party sources. Although my page did cite third-party sources, I cited to Mhking other pages (such as Six Flags Theme Park) that do not cite sources, but were warned rather than deleted. I am from central new york and have no vested interest in Enchanted Forest, but wish to participate in Misplaced Pages in a meaningful manner. I would like the opportunity to finish the page and provide useful information about this and other topics. Thank you for your time. ] 01:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
Line 59: | Line 62: | ||
* Undelete, as this is not a re-creation of the original article and hence is not subject to speedy under G4. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | * Undelete, as this is not a re-creation of the original article and hence is not subject to speedy under G4. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
* I just wanted to add the comment that I did not fully understand the deletion discussion procedure, so after I found it speedily deleted (the first time), I went back and generated a complete article, with cited references. I believe this was misunderstood as an attempt to subvert the regular procedures; I was instead trying to answer what I thought was a concern about sources. I understand the importance of citing sources and my first attempt at the page was more of a "placeholder" (which I won't do without sources in the future) since I saw the subject did not exist and wanted to create it. Sorry for the confusion about this. ] 01:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | * I just wanted to add the comment that I did not fully understand the deletion discussion procedure, so after I found it speedily deleted (the first time), I went back and generated a complete article, with cited references. I believe this was misunderstood as an attempt to subvert the regular procedures; I was instead trying to answer what I thought was a concern about sources. I understand the importance of citing sources and my first attempt at the page was more of a "placeholder" (which I won't do without sources in the future) since I saw the subject did not exist and wanted to create it. Sorry for the confusion about this. ] 01:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*I was the last person to delete this page (it was completely blank when I did so), and I'm also the one who suggested that ] bring his case here. Looking back through the history, I was actually impressed with the article...he did a good job writing it, it just lacked sourcing, which could have easily been taken care of with ref or fact tags. I support either restoring the article to it's "long" condition, or restoring the text to a draft page on ]'s user page where he can work on it and bring it up to speed; I'd be willing to coach him along in this, if he so desired. Once it was ready, I'd suggest a quick review by a couple of the original deleting admins, and then a launch back into the encyclopedia. I believe that this is a good-faith effort by a new editor who simply has got caught up in the "process" that this place can become. ''']''' 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | *I was the last person to delete this page (it was completely blank when I did so), and I'm also the one who suggested that ] bring his case here. Looking back through the history, I was actually impressed with the article...he did a good job writing it, it just lacked sourcing, which could have easily been taken care of with ref or fact tags. I support either restoring the article to it's "long" condition, or restoring the text to a draft page on ]'s user page where he can work on it and bring it up to speed; I'd be willing to coach him along in this, if he so desired. Once it was ready, I'd suggest a quick review by a couple of the original deleting admins, and then a launch back into the encyclopedia. I believe that this is a good-faith effort by a new editor who simply has got caught up in the "process" that this place can become. ''']''' 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
* Radecki, which version do you say was good? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | * Radecki, which version do you say was good? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*:I'd say would probably be the best starting point. It does need some work, no doubt, needs a good lead, and reorganization, and needs the tone to be adjusted to be more encyclopedic, but it's certainly a start. ''']''' 20:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | *:I'd say would probably be the best starting point. It does need some work, no doubt, needs a good lead, and reorganization, and needs the tone to be adjusted to be more encyclopedic, but it's certainly a start. ''']''' 20:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*::That version, unless I am much mistaken, reads like a pastiche or satire of an amusement park rather than a sourced article. There are a number of assertions and descriptions of things in there that I am highly dubious are actually factually true, and I would want to see cites for them. ++]: ]/] 22:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | *::That version, unless I am much mistaken, reads like a pastiche or satire of an amusement park rather than a sourced article. There are a number of assertions and descriptions of things in there that I am highly dubious are actually factually true, and I would want to see cites for them. ++]: ]/] 22:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*:Lar - The intent is not satirical. If you check the sources, you will see the factual information regarding theme parks of that era. Of interest (and perhaps not relevant here), the History Channel had an interesting series on theme parks of the 1950's and their impact on Americana, along with the contemporaneous development of more mainstream parks, such as Disney World. Inasmuch as assertions you feel unfounded; I would be happy to provide additional citations to bolster the article. ] 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | *:Lar - The intent is not satirical. If you check the sources, you will see the factual information regarding theme parks of that era. Of interest (and perhaps not relevant here), the History Channel had an interesting series on theme parks of the 1950's and their impact on Americana, along with the contemporaneous development of more mainstream parks, such as Disney World. Inasmuch as assertions you feel unfounded; I would be happy to provide additional citations to bolster the article. ] 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
Line 79: | Line 82: | ||
|} | |} | ||
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
====] and ]==== | |||
|- | |||
⚫ | :{{la|Shawn Hornbeck}} < |
||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" | | |||
⚫ | :{{la|Ben Ownby}} < |
||
* '''] and ]''' – Deletions endorsed and redirects protected. Open to see full reasoning. – ] 04:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC) <!--*--> | |||
|- | |||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the ] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' | |||
|- | |||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | |||
*One of the key arguments that made me reach my decision was : "Misplaced Pages is not WikiNews". Minor subjects involuntarily dragged into momentary infamy due to some very forgettable actions committed against them should not be treated as the latest scoop. Jimbo's to ], NYB and several other participants below have expounded this with detailed reasoning. The deletion of the Ben Ownby article is clearly endorsed. However Shawn Hornbeck's may be considered as a provisional one. If Night Gyr's laudable efforts to contact the Hornbeck foundation receive a favourable response, an appropriate article can be made for either the foundation or Hornbeck himself. In the meantime, a redirect will not cause any irreparable loss of information, After all, ]. --] 04:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | :{{la|Shawn Hornbeck}} <kbd>(</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks"></span><kbd>|</kbd>]<kbd>)</kbd> | ||
⚫ | :{{la|Ben Ownby}} <kbd>(</kbd>]<kbd>|</kbd><span class="plainlinks"></span><kbd>|</kbd>]<kbd>)</kbd> | ||
Procedural nomination, either the page should be salted to prevent recreation if the concern for privacy is so great, or it should have been listed for AFD instead of ]. Personally I think that both Hornbeck and Ownby are non-notable by themselves, but I would like to see greater consensus amongst the community than an administrator's unilateral decision. Therefore, I call for an AfD on procedural grounds. Past AfD was a "no consensus". ] 01:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | Procedural nomination, either the page should be salted to prevent recreation if the concern for privacy is so great, or it should have been listed for AFD instead of ]. Personally I think that both Hornbeck and Ownby are non-notable by themselves, but I would like to see greater consensus amongst the community than an administrator's unilateral decision. Therefore, I call for an AfD on procedural grounds. Past AfD was a "no consensus". ] 01:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
Line 98: | Line 109: | ||
***If we want to work that into existing policy, then that's fine, but I was also probably a little hasty now that I'm doing more research into this one. Even so, whether we draw the line or not is not a situation for one person to make. I may agree with your deletion of one or both in principle, but that doesn't mean we can leave the rest of the community out of the discussion. --] <small>]</small> 01:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ***If we want to work that into existing policy, then that's fine, but I was also probably a little hasty now that I'm doing more research into this one. Even so, whether we draw the line or not is not a situation for one person to make. I may agree with your deletion of one or both in principle, but that doesn't mean we can leave the rest of the community out of the discussion. --] <small>]</small> 01:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
****Agreed, especially when this "consensus" was made on the talk page of another administrator. While well-intentioned, it needs to go before the whole community. ] 01:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ****Agreed, especially when this "consensus" was made on the talk page of another administrator. While well-intentioned, it needs to go before the whole community. ] 01:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*'''Send to AFD''', but <s>keep the article deleted meanwhile for BLP concerns.</s> I originally deleted it as what appeared to be a simple copy and paste of the old contents, but it appeared to have been another administrator doing it, so I undid my recreation protection of the page, but deleted the poor copying.. Now is a good time for an AFD now that the news about him has vanished, so people can look at whether he is notable or not with a clear mind, hopefully. < |
*'''Send to AFD''', but <s>keep the article deleted meanwhile for BLP concerns.</s> I originally deleted it as what appeared to be a simple copy and paste of the old contents, but it appeared to have been another administrator doing it, so I undid my recreation protection of the page, but deleted the poor copying.. Now is a good time for an AFD now that the news about him has vanished, so people can look at whether he is notable or not with a clear mind, hopefully. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
**Per the cache, it's well-referenced and is not negative in tone - there's no BLP policy concerns here, and that should be noted. --] <small>]</small> 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | **Per the cache, it's well-referenced and is not negative in tone - there's no BLP policy concerns here, and that should be noted. --] <small>]</small> 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
***I will acknowledge that as well. ''If'' we are going to have articles on either or both of these two people, the articles were well-written and reasonably referenced. That type of concern was not the basis for my action in deleting them. ] 01:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ***I will acknowledge that as well. ''If'' we are going to have articles on either or both of these two people, the articles were well-written and reasonably referenced. That type of concern was not the basis for my action in deleting them. ] 01:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
****Ah, in that case, my mistake. I think it would be best to send to AFD and restore, then. And my above comments were also in reference to just the Shawn Hornbeck article, I missed the fact that two articles were up for review here. < |
****Ah, in that case, my mistake. I think it would be best to send to AFD and restore, then. And my above comments were also in reference to just the Shawn Hornbeck article, I missed the fact that two articles were up for review here. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*'''Restore both articles''' and permanently remove Newyorkbrad as administrator for his disgusting, arbitrary and grotesque censorship. What are we going to do now-remove the names of all alleged crime victim's? This will be the end of Misplaced Pages as a serious source. ] 02:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Restore both articles''' and permanently remove Newyorkbrad as administrator for his disgusting, arbitrary and grotesque censorship. What are we going to do now-remove the names of all alleged crime victim's? This will be the end of Misplaced Pages as a serious source. ] 02:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*'''Redirect both''' to a broader article about the incident. ] 02:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Redirect both''' to a broader article about the incident. ] 02:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
Line 145: | Line 156: | ||
::*<s>'''List for AFD'''.</s> I've given this a lot of thought and a lot of Google. Misplaced Pages is not the only permanent media. Once ''any'' of these people have entered the media's eye, there is simply no way, short of dedicated ] to the contrary, that nationally-publicized child victims who do not achieve recognition in other ways will ''ever'' have anything other than their ordeals as the top result of Google searches, <u>even excluding Misplaced Pages</u>. Sabine Dardenne, kidnapped 1996? ], ], ]. Alex Griffiths, kidnapped 1990? Many false positives but a ] story on Google page 1. Erica Pratt, kidnapped 2002? ], ]. Timmy White, kidnapped 1980? Crime Library, ], ]. Ashley Wyrick, abandoned 1987? SF Chronicle, ]. Nothing that Misplaced Pages does can possibly erase modern media coverage. Nothing. We can argue from now until forever the morality of ''that'', but we cannot stop it. What we ''can'' do, on the other hand, is ] to ensure that this type of article is extraordinarily well sourced and respectful (something that not all media outlets take the time and caution to do). These people ''will'' find their tragedies at the top of Google 10 and 20 years from now, but the power of BLP and editors writing with respect for their subject at least means that the top hit will not be sensationalist tripe. We should ask ourselves: in the place of Qian Zhijun, would we rather the first thing Google returns be a mature, well-sourced and well-written article, or ? ] 10:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ::*<s>'''List for AFD'''.</s> I've given this a lot of thought and a lot of Google. Misplaced Pages is not the only permanent media. Once ''any'' of these people have entered the media's eye, there is simply no way, short of dedicated ] to the contrary, that nationally-publicized child victims who do not achieve recognition in other ways will ''ever'' have anything other than their ordeals as the top result of Google searches, <u>even excluding Misplaced Pages</u>. Sabine Dardenne, kidnapped 1996? ], ], ]. Alex Griffiths, kidnapped 1990? Many false positives but a ] story on Google page 1. Erica Pratt, kidnapped 2002? ], ]. Timmy White, kidnapped 1980? Crime Library, ], ]. Ashley Wyrick, abandoned 1987? SF Chronicle, ]. Nothing that Misplaced Pages does can possibly erase modern media coverage. Nothing. We can argue from now until forever the morality of ''that'', but we cannot stop it. What we ''can'' do, on the other hand, is ] to ensure that this type of article is extraordinarily well sourced and respectful (something that not all media outlets take the time and caution to do). These people ''will'' find their tragedies at the top of Google 10 and 20 years from now, but the power of BLP and editors writing with respect for their subject at least means that the top hit will not be sensationalist tripe. We should ask ourselves: in the place of Qian Zhijun, would we rather the first thing Google returns be a mature, well-sourced and well-written article, or ? ] 10:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
::*'''Comment''' Interesting list there. I see that most of the articles do not cite sources or are poorly sourced. They also strike me as the equivalent of a ] ("See the dog boy! See the chicken man! Only 25¢, Just one quarter!") I fail to see how those articles add to Misplaced Pages, and can think of ways in which they damage Misplaced Pages. My standards for adding an article to WP are pretty simple in most cases; there are sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. But living persons are a different issue. We should not be holding up living persons to public scrutiny, derision, pity or whatever just because they have made a mistake, had an accident or have been abused. Offering up these kinds of stories for the titilation of our readers is a real disservice. It reminds me of the original reason behind the movement to prevent cruelty to animals. The first animal protection activists were not worried about the animals, they were worried about the effect abusing animals had on the souls of the abusers. I think both sides apply here; it is wrong to subject these private individuals to public scrutiny that may increase or prolong their suffering, and it is wrong to pander to the prurient interests of readers. This is an encyclopedia, it is not '']'' or whatever the equivalent is in other countries. -- |
::*'''Comment''' Interesting list there. I see that most of the articles do not cite sources or are poorly sourced. They also strike me as the equivalent of a ] ("See the dog boy! See the chicken man! Only 25¢, Just one quarter!") I fail to see how those articles add to Misplaced Pages, and can think of ways in which they damage Misplaced Pages. My standards for adding an article to WP are pretty simple in most cases; there are sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. But living persons are a different issue. We should not be holding up living persons to public scrutiny, derision, pity or whatever just because they have made a mistake, had an accident or have been abused. Offering up these kinds of stories for the titilation of our readers is a real disservice. It reminds me of the original reason behind the movement to prevent cruelty to animals. The first animal protection activists were not worried about the animals, they were worried about the effect abusing animals had on the souls of the abusers. I think both sides apply here; it is wrong to subject these private individuals to public scrutiny that may increase or prolong their suffering, and it is wrong to pander to the prurient interests of readers. This is an encyclopedia, it is not '']'' or whatever the equivalent is in other countries. -- ] 11:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
:::*Well, I didn't spend much time examining the quality of the standing articles when I assembled the topical list (and, clearly, I should have). With that in mind, though, I think the solution here is cleanup ... if the best that we can offer is a freak show entry, then the article cannot stand under BLP (or common sense, good practice, etc.). If we can offer a mature, properly sourced article about the subject — the ''person'' — then the same very power that Misplaced Pages has to top Google lists ensures that material of quality is associated with the name. Because regardless of our actions, people who "have made a mistake, had an accident or been abused" are going to have those events immortalized in Google. ''If'' we are going to argue that our action should follow from moral grounds, the action under our control that is likely the least harmful (and hopefully beneficial on the whole) to these people is to present a factual article that avoids devolving to prurience. I'll convert one of these sad excuses for a Misplaced Pages entry into something closer to what I think it ought to be in the next few hours, by means of example. Hopefully, it will be more illustrative than their current condition, which, again, is inexcusibly low in general. ] 11:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | :::*Well, I didn't spend much time examining the quality of the standing articles when I assembled the topical list (and, clearly, I should have). With that in mind, though, I think the solution here is cleanup ... if the best that we can offer is a freak show entry, then the article cannot stand under BLP (or common sense, good practice, etc.). If we can offer a mature, properly sourced article about the subject — the ''person'' — then the same very power that Misplaced Pages has to top Google lists ensures that material of quality is associated with the name. Because regardless of our actions, people who "have made a mistake, had an accident or been abused" are going to have those events immortalized in Google. ''If'' we are going to argue that our action should follow from moral grounds, the action under our control that is likely the least harmful (and hopefully beneficial on the whole) to these people is to present a factual article that avoids devolving to prurience. I'll convert one of these sad excuses for a Misplaced Pages entry into something closer to what I think it ought to be in the next few hours, by means of example. Hopefully, it will be more illustrative than their current condition, which, again, is inexcusibly low in general. ] 11:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
::::*I won't pretend that its ideal, but I've ground-up reworked ]. Why? Because this is (at least the start of) an example of what these articles could be. It presents minimal facts of the case. There is no need for lurid details, we are not a tabloid. It discusses what controversies and related issues are relevant — in this case, wider issues of media bias. It does ''not'' discuss other controversies and related issues that are not relevant and whose impact could be harmful — in this case, accusations that her family had gang and drug involvement. The sources are reliable and chosen, where possible, because ''they themselves'' made similar editorial decisisons. This young girl is lucky because, at the moment, her (which isn't Misplaced Pages) is a pretty decent article. '''But''', it could be dreck like , which is nearly a hit piece, and is everything she doesn't want to have to deal with. Not all these victims are so lucky. Many face Google searches where the crap, not the cream, has floated to the top. We can't guarantee that Misplaced Pages will be the "I'm Feeling Lucky" entry, but we know this site has name recognition. The entire point of this extended discussion on BLP and its (proposed) use to delete whole categories of biographies is that we are doing the people a disfavor if we write about them. I suggest that if we exert the effort to write mature, competant articles, we do a bigger disfavor by remaining silent in the face of articles like that last one I linked (and many of these victims suffer from worse than that one). Because ''those'' articles are like Misplaced Pages in one regard: their online imprint is probably forever. ] 14:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ::::*I won't pretend that its ideal, but I've ground-up reworked ]. Why? Because this is (at least the start of) an example of what these articles could be. It presents minimal facts of the case. There is no need for lurid details, we are not a tabloid. It discusses what controversies and related issues are relevant — in this case, wider issues of media bias. It does ''not'' discuss other controversies and related issues that are not relevant and whose impact could be harmful — in this case, accusations that her family had gang and drug involvement. The sources are reliable and chosen, where possible, because ''they themselves'' made similar editorial decisisons. This young girl is lucky because, at the moment, her (which isn't Misplaced Pages) is a pretty decent article. '''But''', it could be dreck like , which is nearly a hit piece, and is everything she doesn't want to have to deal with. Not all these victims are so lucky. Many face Google searches where the crap, not the cream, has floated to the top. We can't guarantee that Misplaced Pages will be the "I'm Feeling Lucky" entry, but we know this site has name recognition. The entire point of this extended discussion on BLP and its (proposed) use to delete whole categories of biographies is that we are doing the people a disfavor if we write about them. I suggest that if we exert the effort to write mature, competant articles, we do a bigger disfavor by remaining silent in the face of articles like that last one I linked (and many of these victims suffer from worse than that one). Because ''those'' articles are like Misplaced Pages in one regard: their online imprint is probably forever. ] 14:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
Line 157: | Line 168: | ||
::* Nice straw man. Seems like there's no point of contact here between us, or between your examples and reality for that matter. Anne Frank? Get over yourself, please! <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ::* Nice straw man. Seems like there's no point of contact here between us, or between your examples and reality for that matter. Anne Frank? Get over yourself, please! <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
:::*Yes, Anne Frank. Under YOUR CRITERIA, you'd delete her article. She was a previously private individual only notable for being a victim of her government's racist policies and for having her diary published against her will. -] 21:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | :::*Yes, Anne Frank. Under YOUR CRITERIA, you'd delete her article. She was a previously private individual only notable for being a victim of her government's racist policies and for having her diary published against her will. -] 21:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*'''Leave them deleted''' I think I've stated my reasoning in my comment above. -- |
*'''Leave them deleted''' I think I've stated my reasoning in my comment above. -- ] 11:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
* Other than this notorious incident there is nothing to do a biography on. I think procedural nominations are generally a bad idea. Let's not mutually stroke each other with process and procedure, let's do the right thing. Demanding either salting or AfD seems silly, as we don't salt unless something has been recreated multiple times. Per NYBrad's commment, the community does need to come to grips with this question of how "concern for the well-being and privacy of living persons will be taken into account". I think we have a duty to be ethical, as I have said before, and that trumps the need to include every possible factoid. That's a sentiment I think there is broad consensus for if it were checked for. We had some good outcomes recently in which we managed to preserve the information that was relevant in the appropriate article without creating additional negative notoriety for the victims. Let's keep that trend going, hm? '''endorse deletion''' with a suggestion that the relevant article on child abduction be reviewed to ensure that this case is included in the proper context. I oppose redirects from their names as that gives the spiders more to work with. As for the suggestion that NYBrad be "punished" that is at best, laughable, as he is one of our very sagest admins. Oh, and I'm no deletionist, by the way, see directly above. ++]: ]/] 13:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | * Other than this notorious incident there is nothing to do a biography on. I think procedural nominations are generally a bad idea. Let's not mutually stroke each other with process and procedure, let's do the right thing. Demanding either salting or AfD seems silly, as we don't salt unless something has been recreated multiple times. Per NYBrad's commment, the community does need to come to grips with this question of how "concern for the well-being and privacy of living persons will be taken into account". I think we have a duty to be ethical, as I have said before, and that trumps the need to include every possible factoid. That's a sentiment I think there is broad consensus for if it were checked for. We had some good outcomes recently in which we managed to preserve the information that was relevant in the appropriate article without creating additional negative notoriety for the victims. Let's keep that trend going, hm? '''endorse deletion''' with a suggestion that the relevant article on child abduction be reviewed to ensure that this case is included in the proper context. I oppose redirects from their names as that gives the spiders more to work with. As for the suggestion that NYBrad be "punished" that is at best, laughable, as he is one of our very sagest admins. Oh, and I'm no deletionist, by the way, see directly above. ++]: ]/] 13:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*'''<s>I couldn't care less</s>''' but we need to stop fighting over the articles of minor individuals who are only notable because of events outside their control. Time to make WP:DIGNITY a guideline and update the deletion policy to reflect that BLP concerns outweight notability criteria. The way to do this is via an RFC or something similar. In the meantime we need to stop throwing mud at admins who are cleatly wrestling with a difficult issue and try and deal with this like adults. Lets cut out the irrational accusations and have a mature debate. If we can't do this then the project really has serious problems. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''<s>I couldn't care less</s>''' but we need to stop fighting over the articles of minor individuals who are only notable because of events outside their control. Time to make WP:DIGNITY a guideline and update the deletion policy to reflect that BLP concerns outweight notability criteria. The way to do this is via an RFC or something similar. In the meantime we need to stop throwing mud at admins who are cleatly wrestling with a difficult issue and try and deal with this like adults. Lets cut out the irrational accusations and have a mature debate. If we can't do this then the project really has serious problems. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
Line 174: | Line 185: | ||
*'''Keep deleted''' unacceptable articles - no notability - good BLP deletions - we are not a newspaper, this stuff dies.--]<sup>g</sup> 21:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep deleted''' unacceptable articles - no notability - good BLP deletions - we are not a newspaper, this stuff dies.--]<sup>g</sup> 21:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
**What part of ], A7 (speedy deletion for notability) or G10 (speedy deletion for BLP issues) did these articles meet? ] (]/]) 21:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | **What part of ], A7 (speedy deletion for notability) or G10 (speedy deletion for BLP issues) did these articles meet? ] (]/]) 21:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*'''Delete''' No one sensible gives a shit anymore. -<b>< |
*'''Delete''' No one sensible gives a shit anymore. -<b>] <small>]</small></b> 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
* OK, I have now gone back and re-read these articles. They highlight, to me, a fundamental problem with Misplaced Pages as it now is. We currently consider that anything covered in more than a small number of sources may be considered "notable" and therefore valid for inclusion. This ignores the fact that most cases of, say, missing children, will get quite a bit of coverage, but without ever rising above the status of generic missing child. Some become causes celebres, most do not. Tragic, but I think most of us agree that Misplaced Pages is not a memorial. Now, Wikinews can cover these stories well, because it;s a news site, so we'd expect to find news there. And news stories is what they are. Biographies are different from news stories. Biographies are supposed to be the life stories of culturally significant individuals. I think Misplaced Pages is ending up with a hodge-podge of activist-driven stories, court reports and the like drawn directly form news sources as primary publishers, most of which do not make it into the secondary sources (books of notable crimes, law reports, case law and so on). They are not actually ''encyclopaedic'', as such, and most of them are subject to the age-old confusion between what is in the public interest and what merely interests the public. So: can anyone explain what the actual long-term cultural significance of this story is, and if so, whether it can be covered under a better title? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | * OK, I have now gone back and re-read these articles. They highlight, to me, a fundamental problem with Misplaced Pages as it now is. We currently consider that anything covered in more than a small number of sources may be considered "notable" and therefore valid for inclusion. This ignores the fact that most cases of, say, missing children, will get quite a bit of coverage, but without ever rising above the status of generic missing child. Some become causes celebres, most do not. Tragic, but I think most of us agree that Misplaced Pages is not a memorial. Now, Wikinews can cover these stories well, because it;s a news site, so we'd expect to find news there. And news stories is what they are. Biographies are different from news stories. Biographies are supposed to be the life stories of culturally significant individuals. I think Misplaced Pages is ending up with a hodge-podge of activist-driven stories, court reports and the like drawn directly form news sources as primary publishers, most of which do not make it into the secondary sources (books of notable crimes, law reports, case law and so on). They are not actually ''encyclopaedic'', as such, and most of them are subject to the age-old confusion between what is in the public interest and what merely interests the public. So: can anyone explain what the actual long-term cultural significance of this story is, and if so, whether it can be covered under a better title? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
**This isn't the venue for your opinions on notability. ] (]/]) 21:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | **This isn't the venue for your opinions on notability. ] (]/]) 21:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
Line 200: | Line 211: | ||
*'''List at AfD'''. The idea that someone would summarily delete an article without discussion speaks to no small amount of hubris. By any reasonable measure, deleting this article this article would have essentially no effect on a minor's privacy, given that Google, for example, gives over 100,000 hits for the subject's name. BLP is no issue as long as strenuous citation efforts are taken (which should be no problem, given the mainstream media coverage). ] | ] 05:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''List at AfD'''. The idea that someone would summarily delete an article without discussion speaks to no small amount of hubris. By any reasonable measure, deleting this article this article would have essentially no effect on a minor's privacy, given that Google, for example, gives over 100,000 hits for the subject's name. BLP is no issue as long as strenuous citation efforts are taken (which should be no problem, given the mainstream media coverage). ] | ] 05:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*'''Comment''' - If the consensus is to keep them deleted so be it, I can respect that. However, I don't see why we can't have them considering we have an article on ]. I mean, if ever there was inappropriate article it is that one. IMO. ] 06:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' - If the consensus is to keep them deleted so be it, I can respect that. However, I don't see why we can't have them considering we have an article on ]. I mean, if ever there was inappropriate article it is that one. IMO. ] 06:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
:*'''Comment''' But that article doesn't name underage victims. The two articles under discussion here were not deleted because they were inappropriate, they were deleted because they are potentially damaging for underage victims of sexual abuse who are not notable for any other reason. -- |
:*'''Comment''' But that article doesn't name underage victims. The two articles under discussion here were not deleted because they were inappropriate, they were deleted because they are potentially damaging for underage victims of sexual abuse who are not notable for any other reason. -- ] 11:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*'''Comment''' Hmm, the more I read these discussions, the more I'm convinced that there needs to be a better way to develop consensus here. Is there any chance of a more widely-advertised note about this issue? Right now we're just dealing with individual pages as they come, but not developing anything overall. ] 07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' Hmm, the more I read these discussions, the more I'm convinced that there needs to be a better way to develop consensus here. Is there any chance of a more widely-advertised note about this issue? Right now we're just dealing with individual pages as they come, but not developing anything overall. ] 07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
**] was written 5 days ago. ] 12:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ** was written 5 days ago. ] 12:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
***No, I'm thinking of something that attracts the attention of everybody, like the recent password security thing or the poll regarding ]. ] 15:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ***No, I'm thinking of something that attracts the attention of everybody, like the recent password security thing or the poll regarding ]. ] 15:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*'''Keep deleted.''' Two individuals (minors at that) who have no notability outside of the crimes committed upon them; there are few cases more clear-cut, IMO. If the crime itself is notable (it seems to have received a fair amount of press coverage) then there may be a case for keeping an article on the crime, but not these. ] (]:]) 13:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep deleted.''' Two individuals (minors at that) who have no notability outside of the crimes committed upon them; there are few cases more clear-cut, IMO. If the crime itself is notable (it seems to have received a fair amount of press coverage) then there may be a case for keeping an article on the crime, but not these. ] (]:]) 13:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*'''Endorse deletion''' - as Morven says, there are other ways of dealing with this other than the biographical, especially as according to the deleted article he did not set up this foundation, his parents did. Potentially damaging articles like this, that do not discuss people as people but merely as crime victims, are not needed in the slightest. Troutslap the people calling for Newyorkbrad's head: don't make fools of yourselves, this was the right decision and not an abuse of admin buttons. ] <sup> ]</sup> 13:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Endorse deletion''' - as Morven says, there are other ways of dealing with this other than the biographical, especially as according to the deleted article he did not set up this foundation, his parents did. Potentially damaging articles like this, that do not discuss people as people but merely as crime victims, are not needed in the slightest. Troutslap the people calling for Newyorkbrad's head: don't make fools of yourselves, this was the right decision and not an abuse of admin buttons. ] <sup> ]</sup> 13:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
Line 222: | Line 233: | ||
*'''Endorse deletion.''' Let me say, though, that we are getting toward the borderline here. This is not Brian Peppers we are talking about; these are people who participated (albeit horrifyingly against their will) in a event that was deemed quite newsworthy by the mainstream media. We want to be careful not to move ] to include much ''beyond'' this point; but I think that these people basically remain private citizens overall and thus entitled to be not harassed (which is was it amounts to) by having a Misplaced Pages article on them. If there's any question of this it's definitely resolved in their favor by the fact of their being minors. ] 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Endorse deletion.''' Let me say, though, that we are getting toward the borderline here. This is not Brian Peppers we are talking about; these are people who participated (albeit horrifyingly against their will) in a event that was deemed quite newsworthy by the mainstream media. We want to be careful not to move ] to include much ''beyond'' this point; but I think that these people basically remain private citizens overall and thus entitled to be not harassed (which is was it amounts to) by having a Misplaced Pages article on them. If there's any question of this it's definitely resolved in their favor by the fact of their being minors. ] 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
**How private can a citizen be if they've gone on Oprah to discuss it? Seriously. --] <small>]</small> 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | **How private can a citizen be if they've gone on Oprah to discuss it? Seriously. --] <small>]</small> 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
***I don't recall seeing "appeared on Oprah" in any of our notability quidelines. Appearing on Oprah is now part of everybody's fifteen minutes of fame. It is as ephemeral as making page one of a newspaper. Such persons in the past have sunk back into obscurity, and it is not the function of Misplaced Pages to prevent them from sinking back into obscurity as private persons. -- |
***I don't recall seeing "appeared on Oprah" in any of our notability quidelines. Appearing on Oprah is now part of everybody's fifteen minutes of fame. It is as ephemeral as making page one of a newspaper. Such persons in the past have sunk back into obscurity, and it is not the function of Misplaced Pages to prevent them from sinking back into obscurity as private persons. -- ] 20:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*****That's not the issue Donald. He's saying that if someone appears on Oprah, there are no privacy issues with mentioning their name. Notability is a totally different issue, but seeing as there's wide media coverage I don't see how they could be non-notable either. - ]|] 11:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | *****That's not the issue Donald. He's saying that if someone appears on Oprah, there are no privacy issues with mentioning their name. Notability is a totally different issue, but seeing as there's wide media coverage I don't see how they could be non-notable either. - ]|] 11:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
****What would be enough for ]? ] (]/]) 20:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ****What would be enough for ]? ] (]/]) 20:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
****On the contrary, being on Oprah shows an even larger interest than simple news observation. In terms of notability, however, there's no argument that these two are notable individuals. --] <small>]</small> 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ****On the contrary, being on Oprah shows an even larger interest than simple news observation. In terms of notability, however, there's no argument that these two are notable individuals. --] <small>]</small> 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*****No, that is transient notoriety. Most people will have forgotten their names in a few months. These two boys are not notable in an encyclopedic sense, and deserve to return to private status. Permanently enshrining their names in Misplaced Pages is a disservice to them, and may cause them distress or harm in the future. Keeping the articles would in effect be punishing them for being victims. -- |
*****No, that is transient notoriety. Most people will have forgotten their names in a few months. These two boys are not notable in an encyclopedic sense, and deserve to return to private status. Permanently enshrining their names in Misplaced Pages is a disservice to them, and may cause them distress or harm in the future. Keeping the articles would in effect be punishing them for being victims. -- ] 22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
******There's no such thing as "private status" in cases like this, especially this one. Notability is not temporary, and parroting the "may cause distress or harm" line with no demonstration of it does not help the discussion. --] <small>]</small> 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ******There's no such thing as "private status" in cases like this, especially this one. Notability is not temporary, and parroting the "may cause distress or harm" line with no demonstration of it does not help the discussion. --] <small>]</small> 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
******'Transient' is pretty subjective, and 'worth talking about' is a value judgement. ] goes by whether they're talked about, not if we think they should be. ] (]/]) 22:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ******'Transient' is pretty subjective, and 'worth talking about' is a value judgement. ] goes by whether they're talked about, not if we think they should be. ] (]/]) 22:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
Line 234: | Line 245: | ||
*'''Restore the history, redirect and merge''' to ]. A side note, one should not speedy something in which a rational argument for notability exists. That's the purpose of AfD. However, if it the assertion of notability is unsourced, it can be removed right away. Then it can be speedied.--] 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Restore the history, redirect and merge''' to ]. A side note, one should not speedy something in which a rational argument for notability exists. That's the purpose of AfD. However, if it the assertion of notability is unsourced, it can be removed right away. Then it can be speedied.--] 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
=====Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby - arbitrary section break===== | |||
*'''Further comments and introspection by the deleting administrator''': | *'''Further comments and introspection by the deleting administrator''': | ||
:As I think has become clear, I have been following this debate with very close attention. Many valid points have been made and continue to be made, both in support of endorsing and overturning my deletions. Of course I especially thank those like Cbrown1023 and Fred Bauder and Lar and Sarah and Moreschi and Nandesuka and the others who have said kind things about me personally, which has helped counter some other remarks that were temporarily demoralizing. I want to respond to some of the comments that have been made, and I ask in advance for forgiveness if my comments prove to be lengthy, for the issues are critical and there is much to be said. | :As I think has become clear, I have been following this debate with very close attention. Many valid points have been made and continue to be made, both in support of endorsing and overturning my deletions. Of course I especially thank those like Cbrown1023 and Fred Bauder and Lar and Sarah and Moreschi and Nandesuka and the others who have said kind things about me personally, which has helped counter some other remarks that were temporarily demoralizing. I want to respond to some of the comments that have been made, and I ask in advance for forgiveness if my comments prove to be lengthy, for the issues are critical and there is much to be said. | ||
Line 240: | Line 250: | ||
:My greatest regret from this affair is that there are editors who consider themselves advocates for the victims of crime and have inferred or implied that my deleting these articles shows an indifference or insensitivity to the welfare of victims. As I had hoped my opening comments would have made plain, that is far from the case; the whole point of these deletions, and the reason I handled them is I did, is precisely based on concern for the well-being of two teenagers who were subjected to horrific and criminal abuse. Editors of good faith may and often will disagree with the best ''means'' to balance the welfare of the subjects of our coverage with our encyclopedic mission, but I yield to no one in the depth of my concern for doing so. | :My greatest regret from this affair is that there are editors who consider themselves advocates for the victims of crime and have inferred or implied that my deleting these articles shows an indifference or insensitivity to the welfare of victims. As I had hoped my opening comments would have made plain, that is far from the case; the whole point of these deletions, and the reason I handled them is I did, is precisely based on concern for the well-being of two teenagers who were subjected to horrific and criminal abuse. Editors of good faith may and often will disagree with the best ''means'' to balance the welfare of the subjects of our coverage with our encyclopedic mission, but I yield to no one in the depth of my concern for doing so. | ||
:In general, I am concerned with how not just Misplaced Pages but the modern mass media in general treat crime victims and others who achieve notoriety or notability, fleeting or otherwise, as the result of events wholly beyond their control. The case of one of these article subjects, Ben, is illustrative. He was kidnapped and horribly abused for four days. When he was rescued, he participated in some media coverage, such as a press conference called to thank his rescuers. Beyond that, he may have lingering obligations to relive his ordeal, such as at court proceedings if his alleged assailant goes to trial. But apart from that we, all of us, owe him the precious opportunity to retreat into childhood to the extent that he can and to resume being a 13-year-old boy again, without reminding him unduly that what was done to him is known, lest we join in adding violation by the crowd to violation by the crime. Perhaps not a day, perhaps not an hour, goes by when this young man can escape the memory of what happened to him, but above all we must not allow ourselves to define this individual, to the extent he is known to us at all, by the metes and bounds of the tortures that were inflicted upon him. We know little else about Ben beyond what has been revealed about his victimization; and it is not our business to know more. The Misplaced Pages article on him, by necessity, conflated the victim with the crime. | :In general, I am concerned with how not just Misplaced Pages but the modern mass media in general treat crime victims and others who achieve notoriety or notability, fleeting or otherwise, as the result of events wholly beyond their control. The case of one of these article subjects, Ben, is illustrative. He was kidnapped and horribly abused for four days. When he was rescued, he participated in some media coverage, such as a press conference called to thank his rescuers. Beyond that, he may have lingering obligations to relive his ordeal, such as at court proceedings if his alleged assailant goes to trial. But apart from that we, all of us, owe him the precious opportunity to retreat into childhood to the extent that he can and to resume being a 13-year-old boy again, without reminding him unduly that what was done to him is known to the world, lest we join in adding violation by the crowd to violation by the crime. Perhaps not a day, perhaps not an hour, goes by when this young man can escape the memory of what happened to him, but he is certainly allowed to try; and above all we must not allow ourselves to define this individual, to the extent he is known to us at all, by the metes and bounds of the tortures that were inflicted upon him. We know little else about Ben beyond what has been revealed about his victimization; and it is not our business to know more. The Misplaced Pages article on him, by necessity, conflated the victim with the crime. | ||
:If Ben, in future years, does not become a starting linebacker for an NFL team or a first-chair cellist at the Philharmonic or the senior senator from Missouri, but remains otherwise non-notable as we define notability, the Misplaced Pages article on him 30 years from now may remain more-or-less frozen and define the now-middle-aged Ben Ownby largely in terms of what happened to him for four days when he was 13. We owe it to him not to do that. For the adult Wikipedians, imagine that this were your child; for the younger Wikipedians, imagine, God forbid, that this were someone known to you—is the story of a kidnapping and a series of assaults upon a young victim how you want to define the life of someone you cared about, the most important fact anyone will ever know about him? I see from some of the comments in this AfD that I am not alone in finding the thought horrifying. | :If Ben, in future years, does not become a starting linebacker for an NFL team or a first-chair cellist at the Philharmonic or the senior senator from Missouri, but remains otherwise non-notable as we define notability, the Misplaced Pages article on him 30 years from now may remain more-or-less frozen and define the now-middle-aged Ben Ownby largely in terms of what happened to him for four days when he was 13. We owe it to him not to do that. For the adult Wikipedians, imagine that this were your child; for the younger Wikipedians, imagine, God forbid, that this were someone known to you—is the story of a kidnapping and a series of assaults upon a young victim how you want to define the life of someone you cared about, the most important fact anyone will ever know about him? I see from some of the comments in this AfD that I am not alone in finding the thought horrifying. | ||
Line 260: | Line 270: | ||
**And thank you for taking being willing to take your lumps and endure the withering criticism in this forum. Your civility and focus on keeping this discussion on-topic is very much appreciated. ] 04:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | **And thank you for taking being willing to take your lumps and endure the withering criticism in this forum. Your civility and focus on keeping this discussion on-topic is very much appreciated. ] 04:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
::I think a weakness in the "it'll be on the Internet forever" argument is that Web pages do disappear (I keep having to deal with dead links that had been used as sources for articles). I certainly hope that Misplaced Pages will survive longer than most of what is on the Internet, and that could put us in the position of becoming the major factor in keeping attention focused on a victim who deserves the right to heal in obscurity. -- |
::I think a weakness in the "it'll be on the Internet forever" argument is that Web pages do disappear (I keep having to deal with dead links that had been used as sources for articles). I certainly hope that Misplaced Pages will survive longer than most of what is on the Internet, and that could put us in the position of becoming the major factor in keeping attention focused on a victim who deserves the right to heal in obscurity. -- ] 08:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*'''Undelete ]''' (at least redirect both). Their names can easily be found in the used sources for the article on the kidnapper, trying to hide them here won't add to their privacy and will make the relevant articles incomplete. On top of that, Hornbeck is actually looking to attract press attention, so deleting the article to protect his privacy when he (and his family) have no such qualms is not helpful. I'm suggesting redirecting because they're primarily notable for their kidnapping and not much else could be written about them (without sharing material that is private). - ]|] 11:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Undelete ]''' (at least redirect both). Their names can easily be found in the used sources for the article on the kidnapper, trying to hide them here won't add to their privacy and will make the relevant articles incomplete. On top of that, Hornbeck is actually looking to attract press attention, so deleting the article to protect his privacy when he (and his family) have no such qualms is not helpful. I'm suggesting redirecting because they're primarily notable for their kidnapping and not much else could be written about them (without sharing material that is private). - ]|] 11:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*'''Comment''': I just read that ] was contacted for input and I would ask administrators to wait closing this until we have that input. It will provide value opinions of the actual subject involved. - ]|] 11:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Comment''': I just read that ] was contacted for input and I would ask administrators to wait closing this until we have that input. It will provide value opinions of the actual subject involved. - ]|] 11:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
***Can someone tell me if there is some uncensored Wiki site running or being planned where sourced information cannot be censored at the whim of some moron's "moral values"? OJ's kids are traumitized by his being linked to a murder so you idiots need to take down his page too. ] 14:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | ***Can someone tell me if there is some uncensored Wiki site running or being planned where sourced information cannot be censored at the whim of some moron's "moral values"? OJ's kids are traumitized by his being linked to a murder so you idiots need to take down his page too. ] 14:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
**'''Comment''' You should really be careful about who you call morons (]). -- |
**'''Comment''' You should really be careful about who you call morons (]). -- ] 15:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
*'''Keep deleted''' It is impossible to write a neutral, encyclopedic article about a person's life when the only reliable sources relate to a single incident, no matter how well documented. How sad that problems of these people have been so well documented that for the rest of their lives, potential employers, co-workers, suitors, neighbors, and anyone with a purient interest in the private lives of other people will be able to discover every detail of the abuse they suffered, and how disgusting that some Wikipedians think we should be a party to this with our top-ten web site simply because there are enough sources to keep us clear of libel laws. ] 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*Regardless of the extent to which I agree or disagree on any given point, well said, Brad. In part because I believe that I initially misjudged (that is, advocated AFD-listing) what should be done with ''these specific'' articles, I have been spending quite a bit of time looking into what ''could'' be written. I do not know how many of the commentors here carefully read the articles that have been deleted, but '''these articles were not the way to do it'''. Can we find a source for the number of times the police think a victim of sexual abuse was "forcibly sodomized"? Apparently, because ''we did''. Does that have '''any''' business in an encyclopedia, whether the subject is living or dead? '''No'''. I think that all of these cases (Peppers, QZ, Hornbeck, Ownby) underscore the same very real problem. ] says that the things we say about living people must be sourced. It does not say, ''but should'', that simply because we can source a thing does not mean that we should say it. I haven't spoken with Brad or the other editors involved in this issue, but I can say with certainty that is why these articles have been deleted. But I ''cannot'' agree that Misplaced Pages must remain silent — if we can speak in a way that does not fall prey to tabloid salaciousness. Shawn's four-year long kidnapping is unusual. It has raised substantial questions — evaluations of the accuracy or lack thereof of the concept of Stockholm Syndrome, questions about the procedural methods to search for kidnapped victims, questions about the role of law, and of the parents of vicitms in these roles, in addition to the news coverage of the crime itself. An article, I think, can be written from this. Ben Ownby? Not so much. There is nothing to say there outside of his role in Hornsby's story. That's why we have redirects. And I think that should be the standard. When we can write an article that does not devolve into taking base advantage of the horrors of an event, we should write it, with care, with caution, and with respect. When we cannot; we don't, we mustn't. I don't think there is any way remotely possible to write a mature, appropriate story about Brian Peppers, based on currently available material. I do think there is a way to write an article for QZ and one for Hornbeck. But for those articles to exist, we as a community need to recognize that, in a real sense, we are failing at more than ]. We are failing at ]. At the time I write this, ] is a red link, and we should all be humbled and saddened for that. ] 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
The two articles should not be considered as equivalent. Ben Ownby is a minor footnote in the history of kidnapped children. There is nothing particularly notable about him which raises the bar above that. Shawn Hornbeck is a completely different kettle of fish. The Foundation named for Shawn has had literally hundreds of public appearences. Bloggers don't seem to care that much to discuss Ben, however they all want to discuss Shawn. The subject of Shawn's four-year disappearence has been on dozens of forum discussion boards. Shawn has appeared many times more often in the media than Ben. Ben gets 41 thousand Googs, while Shawn get over a hundred thousand. Many more intimate details are known about Shawn, then Ben. Ben is a cypher. Therefore I recommend, that any further discussion should discuss the two articles seperately. ] 16:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Keep the two discussions together'''. That will only unnecessarily complicate the discussion further. Out of the last three opinions on both, we seem to be more in favor of deleting the both of them. Don't complicate this further for nothing. ''']''' '''<small>]</small>''' 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Overturn with possible relist at AfD''' - per above] 16:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Keep deleted''' Write an article about the foundation that briefly discusses why it was founded. Do not maintain a redirect from the person's name. ] 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Keep deleted''' - as per Thatcher131, an article about the foundation might be appropriate. ] (]:]) 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Keep deleted''' and start a new Wiki site where self-appointed censors can't delete legitimately sourced information based on their own "superior" moral values. If the source says that "11 year old Jimmy Jones, born March 1, 1990, got kidnapped and anally raped 654 times" the new site prints the information, in total. Let those who want the censored version go to Misplaced Pages-or the Chinese internet. ] 23:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
**This is deeply sick, and I trust that you are simply trolling at this point. ] 23:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
***], a child sex victim, still has a page complete with date of birth and photo. Get to work censors!] 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
***I don't know that I see anything ''deeply sick'' about that, and I would imagine that to make the contention that John intends to make—viz., that the effects of editing and publishing on those in the real world ought not to be of much/any concern to those who write an encyclopedia (a perfectly reasonable argument, if not one that commands a consensus here at present)—one would want to choose an extreme example to illustrate the absoluteness of his contention. John's tone is, to be sure, probably unnecessarily confrontational, but only in its use of the appellative ''superior'' (and, of course ''moron'', in an above comment) and its conflation of what some might perceive as the censorship by BLP with what most would perceive as censorship by the Chinese government (which, whether an accurate submission or not, is likely to serve to inflame more than to engender discussion), not in its putting forth an extreme (and to some off-putting) example. It is not, in any case, trolling for one to attempt to make a constructive point (or to protest that which he views as contrary to policy/good sense where he aims not to disrupt but to improve the project) in a substandard way, and I would likely submit that John's comment is more likely to be regarded as trollish than any equally unconstructively adversarial comment in this DRV that goes to a contrary proposition only because the latter should a principle that most will generally recognize as more moral than that suggested by, for one, John. ] 05:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Overturn'''. This guy was a cover story in ]. He has a foundation set up in his name. At some point, we have to say that someone's a public figure whether or not they intended to be, and this certainly passes that point. -] <small>]</small> 04:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Keep deleted''' Even if other outlets violate journalistic standards by publishing minor sexual assault victims, wikipedia does not. --] 05:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''' - Yes Misplaced Pages must hold it's head high above that trashy yellow-press ]. Can't sink to their level. ] 06:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Keep deleted''' For the reasons I gave above. -- ] 10:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Keep deleted''' per Newyorkbrad. --] <small>(])</small> 04:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Overturn''' and send back to ], regarding Newyorkbrad's assertions, and the necessity of forging wider input and concensus. --] 08:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Overturn and relist at AfD''', as per my previous post above. Brad's reply to ] is, in my opinion, unqualifiable. ] 10:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Overturn and relist at AFD''' We have an AFD process, and we should respect it. In an AFD I would probably favor deleting the two articles. But Misplaced Pages has guidelines and they should not be overruled by an individual's supposedly superior moral compass. Someone else's compass might say delete -out of process - articles contrary to their political or religious views. If we encourage admins to delete things which they find distasteful or which they think might cause embarrassment, we have made a dramatic change in the nature of Misplaced Pages. Policy changes should not be arbitrary acts by individuals, but should be done on the policy pages themselves. Put the new ] provision out for debate and if it passes, fine. If there should be a provision in ] or ] which says that articles which could embarrass minor victims of crime (like these two) or minors in general (like QZ) than by all means add it and fight the battle there, so it is an enduring standard to cite in all future AFDs. In legal theory they say "Hard cases make bad law." It is better to alter the rules when cases such as this seem to dictate to some editors that changes are indicated. The goal was to prevent the individuals from future embarrassment as well as embarrassment while they are still minors, so you'd better run and delete (out of process) ], an article about a girl who gave birth at age 5 (and was thus the victim of statutory rape). The fact that she is now 73 years old should not be a barrier, by that principle. Otherwise someone could mark their calendar and recreate the Hornbeck/Ownby articles the day they turn 21. Also, when did we start giving the subjects of articles veto power over the existence or content of the articles? Seems to fly in the face of ]. Previously I have argued for deletion of such articles as the Hornbeck and Ownby ones on the basis that we are an encyclopedia, and the criteria which lead newspaper editors and TV news producers to include something as a story are not the same as those which encyclopedia editors use, and a failed guideline lingers on as the essay ]. Some of the views expressed here seem congruent with it. Just because something has substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, we don't necessarily need an encyclopedia article about it forever. ] 16:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
**'''Comment''' I see now changes made May 28 in the policies ] and ] which allow greater latitude for deleting articles such as these two, on the basis that Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper and that we should be careful not to embarrass such youthful crime victims as these two. Not clear if that extends to Elizabeth Smart and other persons not previously notable who got news coverage because of some event beyond their control. But the policy toolnow exists for greater freedom to delete these articles. Seems like it could still be done via AFD, given that no irreparable harm is likely to occur during the 5 day AFD period, based on how long the articles previously existed. ] 22:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
***It doesn't really give any greater latitude. There were also long-needed changes made to the deletion policy where you're gonna need more than strengtrh of numbers to keep this deleted - the arguments to keep this deleted haven't been strong so far. --] <small>]</small> 23:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Keep deleted''' - per above] 16:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Keep deleted''' per my above. ] 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Keep deleted''' ] (]:]) 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Keep deleted''' Even if other outlets violate journalistic standards by publishing minor sexual assault victims, wikipedia does not. --] 05:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*** See ]. Where exactly in Misplaced Pages is it stated "minor sex victims cannot be named even if well sourced"? I await the answer. ] 13:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Keep deleted''' For the reasons I gave above. -- ] 10:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
***Then you are going to censor the ] article also, which contains name, date of birth and photo of a child rape victim?] 17:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
***In accordance with the ruling by administrator Newyorkbrad I have put up ] for deletion. This article contains not only the name, but the birthdate and photo of a minor rape victim.] 23:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Keep deleted''' per Newyorkbrad. --] <small>(])</small> 04:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment'''Is there a link to the previous AFD for this article? We are reviewwing an apparently out of process speedy deletion, so information about past judgements on the article would be helpful. ] 17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
**'''Response''': There was no prior AfD on this article (there was for Shawn's, but not for Ben's). ] 17:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
|- | |||
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the ] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>'' | |||
|} |
Latest revision as of 13:00, 5 June 2022
< 2007 May 27 Deletion review archives: 2007 May 2007 May 29 >28 May 2007
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
popular ongoing comic strip and independent print comic since 2003 by the creator D.J. Coffman who is also the winner of the first Comic Book Challenge put on by NBC and Platinum Studios. Yirmumah has also been featured in Wizard Magazine's "Edge" series as well as been critically reviewed by sites like Newsarama. Yirmumah is also a featured comic of the new Cracked Magazine. The creator of is also well known for helping other webcomic creators in making money with their online content and many creators have used the information available at yirmumah.net/make_money A simple websearch for Yirmumah will also yield several other notable sources in popular culture, as many of Yirmumah's comics are featured in other media, including "The Taylor Hicks Drinking Game" and "Things not to say to Darth Vader at the Imperial Water Cooler" - Please put the article back up. Thanks! - 24.154.221.235 22:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I believe fair use applies for inclusion of this image in the articles Northern Ireland national football team and Irish Football Association. --Kwekubo 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Unnecessary deletion I created this page and found it deleted; I did not enter enough information initially, so I went back and found non-partisan sources and generated detailed information about the topic. I found that the page had been repeatedly deleted by user Mhking, who stated that I did not cite third-party sources. Although my page did cite third-party sources, I cited to Mhking other pages (such as Six Flags Theme Park) that do not cite sources, but were warned rather than deleted. I am from central new york and have no vested interest in Enchanted Forest, but wish to participate in Misplaced Pages in a meaningful manner. I would like the opportunity to finish the page and provide useful information about this and other topics. Thank you for your time. Jjm10 01:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural nomination, either the page should be salted to prevent recreation if the concern for privacy is so great, or it should have been listed for AFD instead of speedied. Personally I think that both Hornbeck and Ownby are non-notable by themselves, but I would like to see greater consensus amongst the community than an administrator's unilateral decision. Therefore, I call for an AfD on procedural grounds. Past AfD was a "no consensus". Calwatch 01:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The two articles should not be considered as equivalent. Ben Ownby is a minor footnote in the history of kidnapped children. There is nothing particularly notable about him which raises the bar above that. Shawn Hornbeck is a completely different kettle of fish. The Foundation named for Shawn has had literally hundreds of public appearences. Bloggers don't seem to care that much to discuss Ben, however they all want to discuss Shawn. The subject of Shawn's four-year disappearence has been on dozens of forum discussion boards. Shawn has appeared many times more often in the media than Ben. Ben gets 41 thousand Googs, while Shawn get over a hundred thousand. Many more intimate details are known about Shawn, then Ben. Ben is a cypher. Therefore I recommend, that any further discussion should discuss the two articles seperately. Wjhonson 16:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |