| Revision as of 04:28, 21 November 2013 editKnowledgekid87 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers96,555 edits →Alexis Reich: Re← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:18, 5 November 2024 edit undoJonesey95 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Template editors370,822 editsm Fix Linter errors. | ||
| (128 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''delete'''. I've read this entire discussion, as well as the article's talk page and comments about it at ], and while there has been quite a bit to sift through, consensus seems clear to me. It has long been accepted that BLP, especially BLP1E, overrides GNG, which may have been technically met here. By numbers, a vast majority of participating users have voted in favor of deletion and/or redirecting. By reasoning—the more important metric—that same side of the debate also seems to prevail, essentially arguing that while the subject of the article has been discussed within extensive journalism, the entire body of coverage is of a transient nature. In its current state, the article is an indiscriminate collection of negative events (non-events, in most cases) in this person's life which have been dug up by the media. The sentences are heavily sourced, but hardly well-sourced.<p>Combine marginal notability of the subject with content issues relating to potential libel and disproportionately negative text, and the outcome of this discussion presents itself quite clearly. It's worth noting that I am forced to almost completely discount one comment in favor of keeping the page, because it discusses the nominator instead of the article. More broadly, comments strictly relating to the ''subject's'' motives have had no bearing on my decision here. It's also important to acknowledge the fact that at least three editors changed their opinions during the course of the discussion, and appear to all support deletion as of this timestamp. I foresee some controversy following this decision, but having weighed my options here, I don't see how this could have been closed any other way. Note that this does not rule out potential recreation ''as a redirect''. – ''']''' | ] 04:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)</p> | |||
| <p>'''Note for future passers-by:''' the article is bluelinked because it has been recreated as a redirect. – ''']''' | ] 16:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)</p> | |||
| <p>], Reich's former name, is also redirected to the JonBenet page. ] (]) 19:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)</p> | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}} | |||
| <div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Reich}}</ul></div> | <div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Reich}}</ul></div> | ||
| :{{la|Alexis Reich}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>) | :{{la|Alexis Reich}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>) | ||
| :({{Find sources|Alexis Reich}}) | :({{Find sources|Alexis Reich}}) | ||
| :({{Find sources|John Mark Karr}}) | :({{Find sources|John Mark Karr}}) | ||
| __NOINDEX__ | |||
| More harm, than good comes on this BLP. Alexis was deemed delusional when she falsely confessed to murdering ]. She won't be tried for the false confession as they determined she really believed she did the crime she had confessed. She also has not been convicted of anything else. But this hit piece goes to great lengths to smear her name - which only has notoriety for the false confession. Then we add insult to injury when we misgender this transwoman because the only sources we have about her name change and transition aren't enough to meet a rather arbitrary limit. We have zero evidence that she is not genuinely a woman. This is what is left after - for months - the article claimed she was a convicted pedophile. I found no evidence of any convictions at all. This is one article where Misplaced Pages is causing real harm over what amounts to be one event. I think it would be better for all concerned to delete this article, and lock down the redirects so they only point to the parent ] article where Reich's involvement can be summed up in a few sentences. I'll even help if needed. ] (]) 09:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{ombox |image=] |text= This page has been ]. <!-- Template:Courtesy blanked --> | |||
| *'''comment''' This is a strange nomination, as you seem to be suggesting a merge. Or do you really think ] and ] should be redlinks? If not, AFD is the wrong place.--] (]) 14:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| **He's suggesting that the content be blanked and that the articles for the two names be made into redirects and permanently fully protected, I think. Contentious conversion of an article into a redirect requires some discussion (and full protection requires admin tools), and since this entails the deletion of all the article contents AfD's a reasonable venue for that. "Redirect" is a common AfD result. "Merge and redirect" is also a possible outcome. ] (]) 16:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, it's a possible outcome, but if you're just proposing a merge, which SportsFan is, I don't think AFD is the proper venue. Is there anyone here who is going to !vote to make those redlinks? If not, then make it a merge discussion.--] (]) 18:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
| *A discussion related to this article is also taking place on ]. ] (]) 14:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **There is already content on Reich in the main article but I think this page needs to be deleted as it's too much of a disregard for basic human dignity. First we muck her over the coals then we misgender her. Delete this and then redirect both pages, and lock them down from getting recreated. ] (]) 15:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ummm, aren't you misgendering her? He is female-to-male, not the other way around, from what I see there. I don't have any objection moving to the most recent name used. ] (]) 17:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, it's the other way around - male-to-female. However, the sourcing on the gender/sex change is weak, which is why the pronouns were switched.--] (]) 18:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks. I've edited the lead sentence that confused me to be clearer, and changed the pronoun to "she" in the lead because it is a current statement about her. Personally I'm OK with referring to "Karr" and "he" in the pre-2008 material because that's how things looked at the time. ] (]) 18:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Redirect''' to ] and permanently fully protect, and also permanently fully protect ]. We do not need to be doing this, people. The person's not notable, or only very marginally notable at best. We're supposed to be making an encyclopedia ''for a reason''. The reason is to ''improve the world'' in some small way. Stuff like this doesn't do it, and I don't care how many rules you can cite, sitting at the keyboard doesn't give you to right to bully people and be generally nasty. This article is about about the various failings of a pathetic mook who had a bad start and hasn't found a good path through life, and that's all it ever really can be (unless it's reduced to a stub), and hosting it is just glorified cyberbullying. So let's don't do it. Leave the poor schmuck some privacy, OK? I don't want to hear "Yeah it's horrible and evil to pick on this guy like this, but marginally meets our notability criteria, which is more important than not being horrible and evil, so keep". That'd be the reasoning of a mediocre person who's lost his moral compass, and if that's you, I'd think that shame alone should be enough to stay your typing hand. ] (]) 16:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Don't we also have some sympathy for the 13-year-old girl? Don't we have some sympathy for other children who might cross paths with "The Immaculates" in the future? Our role is to ''let the editors document the facts published in reliable sources.'' Our role is not to set up tin-pot dictators to tell some editors that their interests aren't interesting enough and they should write for free about something else more pleasing to Higher Authority. ] (]) 18:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Keep.''' Have you people read the sources like http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/06/01/john-mark-karr-after-a-jonbenet-confession-are-their-other-secrets.html ? The person is not a simple "victim of cyberbullying", there are ''reasons'' why so many sources have gone out of their way to cause embarrassment. If we really tbink there's no place for articles about nasty things, why ''don't'' we let the publicists write the corporation articles, hell, why don't we give them admin powers and let them ban anyone who posts an unkind word? This article provides an important insight into a case which, for some reason I don't understand, has been followed intensively by millions of people, as well as an insight into some new and strange phenomenon of "The Immaculates". ] (]) 17:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::We should certainly not be relying on sources that "have gone out of their way to cause embarrassment". That is obviously impermissible in a BLP context. ] (]) 21:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * <s>'''Obvious keep''' This is an encyclopedia, not a school newspaper. We don't delete articles because they "cause more harm than good", we improve them; make them neutral and well sourced. Just the facts ma'am. </s> | |||
| :I'd like to note that fervent discussion of the BLP issues in this article across multiple namespaces does nothing to preserve the dignity of the subject or this encyclopedia. ] 18:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::After further review of sources and and consideration of actual notability. I have to say this should be deleted or merged. ] 23:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''keep''' I don't think the fact of having an article about the subject can be equated to bullying. The article itself may need work, but that is not a reason to not have a biography that clearly passes GNG - multiple independent sources over time have profiled the activities of Karr/Reich. That most of the news is negative is no reason to delete- we have plenty of articles about people who are solely notable for having done something wrong - see the category {{cl|Criminals}} for example. The subject has made some bad choices but has also on multiple occasions sought the spotlight. We could try to balance the article further; there are reports that he was a schoolteacher and that people liked the work they were doing. It could also be trimmed of some of the more minor accusations/etc. But, I don't think it's in the interest of the encyclopedia to delete a biography of a notable person just because we don't like that the bio says about that person. I do think, if we were picking on Karr, it would be bad, but that can be corrected; I'd rather people just focus on improving the article and getting rid of stuff that clearly doesn't belong.--] (]) 18:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong keep''', clearly notable, multiple sources under Karr's name. Meets ]. Becoming transgendered (not sure how this should be phrased) is not a "clean start", nor does it eliminate notability for prior acts under a former name. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">] ]</span> 19:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **Technically there are sources, but everything hinges on one false confession, the rest is dressing. All can be easily summarized on the murder case. This article as is - is an embarrassment to the subject and Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong delete''' as a negative BLP of a person who is not notable. Of course, any biography of this person would tend to focus on the negative, since there is nothing else to cover. The only claim to notability for Reich/Karr is the false murder confession, which is not enough to support an independent article; the coverage of gender issues is mere tabloid fodder that would not exist if not for the subject's previous self-embarrassment. The ] article already has sufficient coverage of this incident, and redirecting the names ] and ] there would not require any attribution of the history, so the present page contents are not needed for any reason. I would also note GregJackP's comments above as a strong reason to delete the article; it's perfectly true that "Becoming transgendered (not sure how this should be phrased) is not a 'clean start'", but I don't see anyone arguing that it should be. Ensuring that negative information about non-notable people remains available - perhaps, by implication, punitively? - is outside the purpose of Misplaced Pages ] (]) 19:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 19:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 19:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 19:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Redirect''' to ]. This is basically a ] situation. Reich is only really notable for one thing - her involvement in the Ramsey case. The rest of the article is full of negative material that is not relevant to that notability. Now some people might say that BLP1E doesn't apply here because she isn't a low-profile individual. But "low-profile individual" is something of a misnomer, since in this policy the term does not refer to the amount of coverage a person has received: ] Reich did not seek out media attention; she entered the media spotlight when she was arrested. It is true that she has given media interviews, but that does not suffice to prevent someone from being low-profile individual for these purposes when (as here) it is not self-promotional. ] (]) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::did you just say Reich did not seek out media attention? I think you'd best go back to the sources and check your math there... Reich actively sought, and received, attention from the media, on many separate occasions, and Reich is notable for much more than just the false admission. Check the sources from 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 - this guy can't stay out of the media, and there are many events which have brought him to the public eye.--] (]) 21:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think Reich sought out attention, not necessarily from the media, but they were seeking her out. The point remains that everything for this article hinges on her false confession which is already covered in the main article. ] (]) 01:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' This nomination is a case of Crocodile tears. The article is a smear job all of a sudden because we aren't allowing junk sources to say the subject is a woman? Is that what makes it a "hit piece"? I find it odd that Sportfan5000 decided to jump into the fray here after a month absence. Or was he really ever gone in the first place? I have no opinion at the moment whether it should be deleted or merged.] (]) 23:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **This article is completely afoul of the spirit of BLP. The current article is largely due to my clean-up efforts and one editor, you, who has been campaigning to misguider her for months. If the article is this bad, is a pile of BLP issues and has little promise of improving, then it is better off to simply delete and redirect. As for the bad faith, I'll leave that up for others to judge. ] (]) 00:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ***I don't know if it is in bad faith or not but I too find it odd that after almost being gone for a month your first edit is to place this up for deletion. - ] (]) 01:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ****This is the very definition of bad faith. I took a break because of this article in particular and before returning thought of what would best serve the spirit of BLP. Specifically - '''''AVPOID doing harm to real people in real life''''', that is all this article does. It serves no purpose but to do that and adds misgendering Alexis on top of it all. No, the main crime article is all that's needed here. ] (]) 02:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ******Without sources, '''you''' are misgendering John. You don't care about him, but rather your crusade.] (]) 04:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''. Fails the BLP1E notability test as explained . Additionally there were serious libel issues in this article, as discussed , which only goes to show that it was created for no good reason. Whoever wrote that stuff should be banned from Misplaced Pages per ]. ] (]) 00:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *If this is to be deleted, how is it any different from ]? ] (]) 01:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **In many ways it's a case of timing, Zimmerman's case saturated the news cycles but did so recently, Reich did so years ago and only related to a crime that had already happened. Reich is also delusional and falsely confessed thus inserting herself into a crime, and pretty much is known for nothing else. Looking at this article all of it can be taken away but the JonBenet stuff, which is already in the JonBenet article. There are differences but what counts is that this article shows no promise of improving unless Reich does something else, and that hasn't happened for at least 5 years. ] (]) 01:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' Subject has in-depth coverage in sources, passes ], Notability does not diminish over time. - ] (]) 01:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ** The only reason his activities were ever covered by the press is his false confession. For example, there's nothing in the press about his 2001 child porn case until 2006. We even have press articles which comment on the ] , etc. Interest in him was waned since 2007 or so. Centrally a BLP1E case, to which the media interest in other matters about him was clearly ancillary. The 2010 coverage of his (2008) name change was at ] level. ] (]) 02:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *** In depth coverage is still in depth coverage, enough to pass notability. - ] (]) 03:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Redirect''' to the Ramsey case. BLP1E case not befitting an encyclopedia. ] (]) 02:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' This is obviously a revenge-nomination now that the article actually follows the source and is BLP-compliant by referring to Karr with male pronouns. ] (]) 03:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ** You bad faith is extremely disgusting. You should be so ashamed of yourself as to cease editing immediately and repeat 100 times "I shall assume good faith on Misplaced Pages". ] (]) 03:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *** My bad faith is extremely logical. After reading Sportfan5000's comments on the talk page of the Karr article, I would be quite foolish to assume any good faith here. ] (]) 04:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment about the 2010-2011 coverage'''. I have (temporarily) added the ''substance'' of the coverage from the 2010-2011 AJC and Fox News pieces to the article. I find these pieces of journalism pretty questionable myself given that they are almost entirely based on the claims of an attorney involved in civil litigation against Reich, but if we were a going to say there is more recent coverage, at least it should be clear what it is about. It was hardly ever about his/her name and desired sex change, except as a plot device in the “Immaculates” cult claims of that lawyer and her client, which also harks back to the JonBenét Ramsey issue. (Given that the ], if I'm not mistaken, is also a radio talk show host, has numerous other appearances in the media, and worked this case "pro bono" enriches the media circus aspect in my view.) ] (]) 04:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **Coverage is still ongoing here is one from October 2013: - ] (]) 04:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **Additional sources from 2013 (From the talkpage): | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| **Would you call this subject low profile? - ] (]) 04:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:18, 5 November 2024
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Combine marginal notability of the subject with content issues relating to potential libel and disproportionately negative text, and the outcome of this discussion presents itself quite clearly. It's worth noting that I am forced to almost completely discount one comment in favor of keeping the page, because it discusses the nominator instead of the article. More broadly, comments strictly relating to the subject's motives have had no bearing on my decision here. It's also important to acknowledge the fact that at least three editors changed their opinions during the course of the discussion, and appear to all support deletion as of this timestamp. I foresee some controversy following this decision, but having weighed my options here, I don't see how this could have been closed any other way. Note that this does not rule out potential recreation as a redirect. – Juliancolton | 04:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Note for future passers-by: the article is bluelinked because it has been recreated as a redirect. – Juliancolton | 16:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
John Mark Karr, Reich's former name, is also redirected to the JonBenet page. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Alexis Reich
AfDs for this article:- Alexis Reich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
 | This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.