Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gerry Hutch: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:12, 6 August 2014 editJayJay (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,400 edits Closing debate, result was speedy keep← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:15, 6 August 2014 edit undoS Marshall (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers32,387 edits Rv non-admin close. This might look obvious to you but it isn't.Next edit →
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 '''speedy keep'''. Frivioulous nomination (]) ]]] 18:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	===]===		===]===
			{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD\|B}}

	:{{la\|Gerry Hutch}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>)		:{{la\|Gerry Hutch}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>)
Line 47:		Line 41:
	* The doesn't actually specify which search queries have had to have been 'forgotten'. Could be anything, really? It's probably a good idea to review the article for anything contrary to ], but ] is hardly the best method - a cleanup tag or an ] might have been more useful. --] (]) 17:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)		* The doesn't actually specify which search queries have had to have been 'forgotten'. Could be anything, really? It's probably a good idea to review the article for anything contrary to ], but ] is hardly the best method - a cleanup tag or an ] might have been more useful. --] (]) 17:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Delete'''. The very first sentence "he is said to be....", a whole unsourced paragraph abut his alleged criminal past, full of unsourced statements, not massively notable in the first place. The Right to be Forgotten law is nonsense, but this article isn't much better and some people commenting above need to get off their moral pedestals. Furhtermore, most of the Keep !votes relate to the RTBF law (irrelevant at AfD) or are simply "he's notable". ] 18:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)		*'''Delete'''. The very first sentence "he is said to be....", a whole unsourced paragraph abut his alleged criminal past, full of unsourced statements, not massively notable in the first place. The Right to be Forgotten law is nonsense, but this article isn't much better and some people commenting above need to get off their moral pedestals. Furhtermore, most of the Keep !votes relate to the RTBF law (irrelevant at AfD) or are simply "he's notable". ] 18:09, 6 August 2014 (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>

Revision as of 18:15, 6 August 2014

Gerry Hutch

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per 'right to be forgotten' takedown by Google. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Under point 1, unless this is a pointy case of WP:SK #2. No policy-based reason for deletion specified. --j⚛e decker 16:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment : I wouldn't consider this pointy, as this comes under a variant of DOLT, the concern was that given it's a BLP there were something in the article that wasn't meeting those criteria, and that was what got it "suppressed" by Google.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I AGF and take you at face value that this wasn't pointy, we haven't run into each other much, a nomination like this can easily appear as such. I appreciate you fleshing out your rationale here as well. It appears we will have quite a few eyes on the article now in any case, and any material that needs to be dealt with under our own policies will, I hope, be attended to promptly if they have not been already. --j⚛e decker 16:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What got it "suppressed" by Google is a counter-productive European law which only applies to search engines. We're a content site, not a search engine- Denimadept (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Beyond the point made by Joe Decker, the Streisand effect is already starting to kick in, he is substantially more notable than he was before the media started covering the request. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep As an American based website, Misplaced Pages is not obliged to follow the European ruling. While the article is still in its early stages (after nearly nine years), Hutch appears to be well enough known in Ireland to merit inclusion. Now awareness of this article has suddenly grown, the problem is likely to be the prevention of editors' turning the this article into a vendetta against the subject. Philip Cross (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep - As specified above, there's no reason to delete this article. Even the Europeans are only saying the search engines can't point at it, not that the data needs to be removed here. We are not a search engine, so their rules don't apply. - Denimadept (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment : Misplaced Pages has it's own policy about contentious BLP though. It's also noted that the Irish Examiner Source in the article appears to be a dead link, rendering some of the articles claims, technically un-sourced.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Not the case — this is why we include an accessdate in online citations, because online pages change. Such a citation is no less valid than a citation to a print source. Nyttend (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Nyttend is precisely right. Also note that the Wayback Machine has an archive of that, e.g., . --j⚛e decker 17:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep No reason to delete and even if the original wasn't very notable (although as mentioned above he's very well known in Ireland) the right to be forgotten request has increased the article profile significantly. Hideki (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Decidedly so. Subject is notable and deserving of this article. Agree this will attract more attention to article, so it just needs to be watched for bias creep. We cannot just begin deleting articles based on Google or European terms. Fylbecatulous talk 17:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep and ~~trout~~ whale nominator. The "right to be forgotten" bullshit is something that makes me ashamed to be a European. It's already bad enough that search engines are forced to pull results people happen to dislike. It would be immensely worse if we begin to swallow this poison and self-censor ourselves obeying the whims of BLP subjects (something which is already dangerously present in some editors' view). Someone who nominates articles to self-censor WP is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia, and, if WP had some balls, would be subject to sanctions. Even thinking of creating such dangerous precedents is a horrible, horrible move. That aside, notable, no policy reason for nomination, etc.etc.-keep that.--cyclopia 17:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep. He has been the subject of TV shows, which pretty clearly establishes notability. I would wonder if this attempt at deletion is done at the behest of Mr. Hutch's request, which would make it against Misplaced Pages's polices for editing your own article. Nodekeeper (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Why the assumption of bad faith? I have absolutely no links with the subject of the article. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy close. I'l be delighted to get involved in stoking up drama on behalf of Google once they start paying me. Formerip (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Agree completely with Joe Decker. No valid reason for deletion advanced by the nominator, Speedy Close under s.1. Tzvecl (talk 17:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The link removal notice doesn't actually specify which search queries have had to have been 'forgotten'. Could be anything, really? It's probably a good idea to review the article for anything contrary to WP:BLP, but WP:AFD is hardly the best method - a cleanup tag or an WP:RFC might have been more useful. --Joy (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete. The very first sentence "he is said to be....", a whole unsourced paragraph abut his alleged criminal past, full of unsourced statements, not massively notable in the first place. The Right to be Forgotten law is nonsense, but this article isn't much better and some people commenting above need to get off their moral pedestals. Furhtermore, most of the Keep !votes relate to the RTBF law (irrelevant at AfD) or are simply "he's notable". Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories: