Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:13, 23 November 2013

Alexis Reich

• Articles for deletion/Alexis Reich
• Articles for deletion/Alexis Reich (2nd nomination)

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)

More harm, than good comes on this BLP. Alexis was deemed delusional when she falsely confessed to murdering JonBenet Ramsey. 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 JonBenet Ramsey article where Reich's involvement can be summed up in a few sentences. I'll even help if needed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• comment This is a strange nomination, as you seem to be suggesting a merge. Or do you really think Alexis Reich and John Mark Karr should be redlinks? If not, AFD is the wrong place.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 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. Herostratus (talk) 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.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• A discussion related to this article is also taking place on User talk:Jimbo Wales#Why is the Arbitration Committee undeleting libel instead of oversighting it?. Candleabracadabra (talk) 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. Sportfan5000 (talk) 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. Wnt (talk) 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.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 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. Wnt (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect to Murder of JonBenét Ramsey and permanently fully protect, and also permanently fully protect John Mark Karr. 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. Herostratus (talk) 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. Wnt (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I take your point, and appreciate you engaging on the level of what is the right thing to do. However, as things have evolved here, we consider really only the subjects of articles from a "harm" viewpoint (per WP:BLP, and that's probably the most we can do as a practical matter. I think we don't have to be complete robots and we can say that we won't host an article for moral reasons (if the article's not truly required in order that the encyclopedia be reasonably complete), but to go to the next step and say that we will host an article for moral reasons is a bridge too far and would be too complicated and contentious to carry out fairly. We're not set up to avenge anyone or warn anyone, but we are set up to at least not attack anyone.

Another way to think of this might be this: we already have a rule such that if a person is only marginally notable (not a "public figure") and requests deletion of his article, we do it. Well here we have a case where the person is only marginally notable and, it's reasonable to infer, would not like the article to exist and would probably request deletion if she knew of it and knew how to request deletion and cared enough to do so. (And there's no way to fix the article, given the totality of the peson's career.) So we should delete it on that basis.

• 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". Wnt (talk) 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. Neljack (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• 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.

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. John Reaves 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. John Reaves 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 Category: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.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Strong keep, clearly notable, multiple sources under Karr's name. Meets WP:GNG. 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. GregJackP Boomer! 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. Sportfan5000 (talk) 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 Murder of JonBenét Ramsey article already has sufficient coverage of this incident, and redirecting the names John Mark Karr and Alexis Reich 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 168.12.253.66 (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect to Murder of JonBenét Ramsey. This is basically a BLP1E 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: "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event." 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. Neljack (talk) 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.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 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. Sportfan5000 (talk) 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.Two kinds of pork (talk) 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. Sportfan5000 (talk) 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. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 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. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
        • • Without sources, you are misgendering John. You don't care about him, but rather your crusade.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
          • That's correct, 2KofP. To even begin to compare Karr with a genuine case of gender identity disorder like Chelsea Manning is ridiculous. No one is "misgendering" Karr. While WP:BLP prevents me from spelling it out in detail, suffice it to say that this so-called "gender change" was done for one of the most disgusting reasons humanly imaginable. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
            • I had made a decision to send this to deletion regardless of what gender we think we can prove. From the sources I saw she was in process of transitioning, hence my belief she identifies as a woman. As far as the article is concerned I hope it will be deleted so a discussion can avoided as to how to identity on this BLP. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
              • What profound logic! If only someone with your forethought had had the sense to simply delete the Chelsea Manning article. Seriously? Arguing to delete an article to avoid the necessity of a discussion? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
                • I'll be happy when this mess of an article is deleted, if you choose to be offended by that then sobeit. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
                  • I'm not offended. I'm merely pointing out yet more evidence that this nomination boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
                    • You are, of course, welcome to believe what you want. I wish that we had a good article about Reich but I don't see that ever happening on Misplaced Pages at this rate. Instead this article is a smear piece against a human being, and as such should be removed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails the BLP1E notability test as explained here. Additionally there were serious libel issues in this article, as discussed here, which only goes to show that it was created for no good reason. Whoever wrote that stuff should be banned from Misplaced Pages per WP:NOTHERE. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• If this is to be deleted, how is it any different from George Zimmerman? Candleabracadabra (talk) 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. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Subject has in-depth coverage in sources, passes WP:GNG, Notability does not diminish over time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • • Changed to Delete per Risker's comments below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:32, 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 media frenzy , 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 The Daily Beast level. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
    • In depth coverage is still in depth coverage, enough to pass notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect to the Ramsey case. BLP1E case not befitting an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 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. Joefromrandb (talk) 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". Someone not using his real name (talk) 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. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
      • The article was nominated for deletion after Risker suggested it should be deleted. I rather doubt you can accuse her of doing so on the basis of revenge regarding the pronoun usage. Neljack (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I made the decision that the article should likely be deleted no matter if I thought she was misgendered or not. You can believe whatever you wish. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:11, 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 same attorney, 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.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Coverage is still ongoing here is one from October 2013: - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Additional sources from 2013 (From the talkpage):
  • 27 Jan 2013, Daily Camera,
  • 28 Jan 2013, Daily Mail
  • 29 Jan 2013, CNN,
  • 29 Aug 2013, CNN,
  • 3 Sep 2013, HuffPost/TNT
  • Would you call this subject low profile with six years of coverage in reliable sources? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • (edit conflict) This was an extremely lame attempt, Knowledgekid. The article nominated for deletion here isn't about the JonBenet-Ramsey murder. The first two links you gave each have exactly one passing mention of Karr, about his false confession. I didn't even bother opening the rest. Go try fool someone else, you <censored>. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
      • <Retracted as this is not helping the deletion discussion>
        • Yeah, maybe I should AGF that you are just extremely incompetent and you don't understand at all what WP:BLP1E is saying. Find another hobby rather than editing Misplaced Pages because you are not making positive contributions here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
          • <Retracted as this is not helping the deletion discussion>
            • Do you have any substantive contributions to make to this deletion nomination? If not go back to you manga or whatever taxes your intellect to the extent that you can handle productively. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
              • Calm down, everyone, please. Risker (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Risker. I have only one more thing to say in this discussion now. Above it was implied that Karr was a (media) attention seeker, and as such he deserves this article about him, according to the essay Misplaced Pages:Who is a low profile individual. I beg to differ in this assessment. I managed to track down what he said in that 2006 CNN interview , which seems to be only one he gave:

Karr said that the media scrutiny has been painful and that he's looking forward to moving back to Atlanta, Georgia, to spend more time with his 85-year-old father.

He said he might return to teaching, but that he's not interested in doing that right now.

"I've just got to live my life, this attention is negative, it's not something you want," Karr said.

So even what he did was publicity/attention seeking, it looks like he regretted it soon enough. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect. This is a classic BLP1E situation. The only thing notable about the subject of this article is the false confession. Not another word of that is notable in any way, and is an example of how misunderstood the BLP policy is. Just because something appears in a "reliable source" (and some of the sources used are on the dubious side, anyway), it doesn't mean it's notable or should be put in the encyclopedia. Much of what is in those "reliable sources" wouldn't have made the news for any other reason than that the article subject confessed to a hot-button crime. The marriages are not notable. The non-conviction is not notable. The transgenderism is not notable. These are all commonplace occurrences. The fact that mainstream media likes to sell the sizzle doesn't mean we have to buy it. BLP does not say "if it's in a reliable source, we need to put it in the article". It doesn't say "it's okay to have articles full of non-notable things about people we find objectionable". It doesn't say "heck, those attorneys and that schoolboard employee are adults, so it's okay to make this Misplaced Pages article one of their top google hits. The kids, we'll take out." BLP doesn't say we should write articles so full of innuendo that the average reader can only come away with the impression that the article subject is at least on speaking terms with the devil himself. This is a BLP1E that has taken every nasty thing anyone has ever published about the subject and pulled it all together with a pretty little bow. We know better, and we are better. Risker (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Right. Just as (counterintuitively) there are people who are almost completely unknown who are notable by our standards (some professors for instance), there are (counterintuitively) people who are a little bit famous who aren't notable by our standards, and this person is one. Herostratus (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see how a neutral article could be written about this person. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid, and we don't report on the salacious details of non-notable individuals, no matter how outrageous the allegations. I agree with Risker: this is a subtle attack article, and there would be nothing left but the BLP1E after it was cleaned up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. I think this is precisely the kind of piece BLP1E was written to address. There are some solid sources here but they all relate to the single event which he was not guilty of. The man is quite disturbed but that alone is not sufficient for an article. It is salacious and juicy but not worthy of our work here. Alternatively, a brief, very brief mention in the Ramsey article with a redirect (i.e. merge and redirect) would be acceptable to me. JodyB _talk 11:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect: in excercizing editorial discretion for primarily a BLP1E case. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep significant media coverage per WP:GNG. WP:BLP1E requires it to be a low profile individual, "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile." Karr was a guest on CNN's Larry King Live on October 16, 2006. He was actively talking with Good Morning America (though the producers decided not to air him). BLP1E is designed to protect private individuals from unwanted media attention from a single event. That is not the case here at all, he actively sought out and agreed to have media attention. Not a low profile individual, not a BLP1E. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Alexis, when they falsely confessed the authorities believed them until it was proven to be false. And it's likely they won't win any criminal charges against them as a person who believes their false confession is only guilty of obstruction. Essentially you're finding a loophole in BLP1E which really doesn't apply well here. Out of the dozens if not hundreds of press opportunities they availed themselves of very few opportunities. No, if they were actively seeking out media we would have the sources to show it. We don't. What remains is a smear BLP tied only to one event, which can, and is, summed up in a few sentences in the main article. This person does not need a worldwide smear job on the highest visited website for biographies. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
    • The problem isn't with Misplaced Pages, it's so many reliable sources, Misplaced Pages mirrors the reality of the sourcing. Low profile is not a loop hole, BLP1E wasn't meant to protect people who sought out media attention from negative media attention. --Green Cardamom (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Green Cardamom, when I look at Misplaced Pages:Who is a low profile individual, I note that "profile" can change over time. All of the article subject's "high profile" activity occurred years ago, and was all in relation to the single event for which the subject is notable. Since that time, Karr/Reich has become a low profile individual, to the point that there are no significant reliable sources that even mention "Alexis Reich". This is indeed a BLP1E.

    Sportfan5000, I believe you are speculating on the mental health of the article subject and should redact your comments above in that respect. Risker (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

    • • Everyone at some point becomes low profile as they age and are forgotten. Notability however does not expire with time so long as there are multiple sources that cover the topic in depth. The question is if they were low profile at the time of the event, not if they become low profile after an event. The change in profile status would be relevant for new coverage, not past coverage. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're talking in circles, Green Cardamom. You're not disputing that the article subject is known only for one event. You don't seem to be disputing that all of the useful reliable sources, either contemporaneous or more recent, only identify this one event as the article subject's reason for notability. You're hanging your hat on the fact that the article subject did a few media interviews years ago on the subject for which he is notable, and implying that his actions of that time make Karr/Reich fair game for an attack article on Misplaced Pages. Once all the non-notable information is stripped out of the article, what we have left is a few sentences that are already in the Ramsay article, where they legitimately should be, since Karr/Reich's notability is derived from the notoriety of the Ramsay murder. Risker (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability does not expire or change with time. Low profile status does not change retroactively for prior events, only going forward for future events. I have no comment on what should be included in this article, it's irrelevant to an AfD, what's relevant is if the topic meets WP:GNG due to multiple reliable sources that cover in depth. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

All the sources are about one event. You're not disagreeing with BLP1E. Risker (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, he is disagreeing with BLP1E precisely because he feels Karr is not a low profile individual. You appear to disagree, though I must say I feel that GC's argument that Karr is not a low profile individual is more credible.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • Done. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I feel that WP:BLP1E is a flawed policy, how often have we been down this road esp with determining if an article about a perp should be kept or not. While this is clearly not a perp artice the issue still remains, how much WP:OR or WP:POV is being used to determine a low profile person when the lines are not drawn boldly? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Alexis is not a perp. She remains convicted of no crimes except being raked over the coals of public opinion on Misplaced Pages, everyone else has moved on. Parent article already has the few sentences that are needed from this mid-sized smear job. She remains notable for one event, and her role in that event is already summed up on the JonBenet article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per Risker and Herostratus. They've said it better than I can. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - basic WP:GNG. I see no reason for redirect or deletion. If this individual did not want to be involved with a murder investigation or incriminate himself he shouldnt have admitted to a child murder. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

When asked, the police authorities confirmed that when she confessed to the murder, she really did believe she had committed it, even though she did not. There are extenuating circumstances to the one event which this entire BLP is based on. The salient details of that one event and this person's involvement have already been succinctly summarized on that crime article. The only need for this article then would be to expand on the person behind the false confession. Everything we now about Reich comes from reporting based to that one event, filtered through that lens. So besides what we already have in the main murder article everything here is dressing and filler, and it's a smear job on at that/or an attack page. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this the "Misplaced Pages article as punishment" keep rationale? That's certainly the way it comes across. Risker (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It really does appear that some editors' "keep" opinions above are based on this exact rationale, that we have a positive duty to see this individual embarrassed. It's disappointing. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeing this article has been around for 7 years now any damage that it may have caused has most likely been done by now, what is also disturbing here that I find are editors accusing each other of having some kind of an hidden "agenda" this has been done by both sides now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps we should come back to a policy discussion here. Otherwise we will never reach a good decision and some people may get out of hand. The purpose is to discuss how this article meets or misses the appropriate policies and thresholds we work with. Stay focused. JodyB _talk 22:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Another Comment In searching for BLP1E, I found an essay that says BLP1E is intended to limit the invasion of privacy of otherwise insignificant people, which seems to echo the sentiments of some here. The question at hand is, do the multiple interviews he gave to major-league outlets put him into the "high-profile" section of "Media attention"? Or were those honest attempts at clearing the air in hopes of being left alone? The outcome here should hinge on those two questions.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I for one am tired of having these repetitive discussions about BLP1E, does it apply? Doesn't It apply? We need to review this policy and make improvements as it seems to conflict with other policies already in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• OBVIOUS keep. this is NUTS, we have an adequately-sourced, factually accurate bio of a person (self-)involved in a major criminal investigation. this person drew major media coverage, & certainly meets the criteria for notability. OBVIOUS KEEP

blp has turned into an UNGODLY MESS, it's become ABSURD; with all the mushy, vaguely-worded "concerns" it's no longer possible to create decent-quality bio articles anymore & if things don't get sorted out soon, it's time for a community-wide rfc to step in & clean-house on the "rules".

Lx 121 (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

They were marginally associated with the crime because she falsely confessed to it. That pretty much sums up her involvement. The rest is filler and can be easily dismissed as it has no bearing on her notability. Everything is tied to the one event. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem, Lx121, is that it is not possible to create a decent quality biographical article about this subject under any circumstances. The reporting of the time makes the Daily Mail and the National Enquirer look good, it is so tabloidish: full of gossip and prurient data that was intended even at the time to show the article subject in as bad a light as possible. It was, even at the time, full of innuendo, and the quality of the article reflects the POV of the contemporaneous sources who wrote with the belief that the article subject was an evil child murderer, and later someone who took advantage of the journalists by making a false confession. There is little neutrality in the original sources, which means that any article that is written relying on those sources will by definition be biased by the journalistic view that this was a self-confessed murderer, and later someone who had taken advantage of them. This is one of the problems with trying to write full-on biographies of people notable for only one event, and who had only a very brief moment in the journalistic sun: there is no possible way to write a NPOV article, because the sources themselves are not neutral. Risker (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"There is little neutrality in the original sources" -- does this mean you think the current article is based primarily off of the "reporting" from the Daily Mail and National Enquirer?Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that. However, the description of the media reaction to Karr's confession is accurately described as a "media frenzy" in the lead of the article. The murder was highly sensationalized, as was all of the coverage about everyone who was even remotely involved in any way, in one of the more archetypical examples of missing white woman syndrome. Risker (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

So we know better than ALL journalists what is neutral. We know better than ALL journalists what is ethical. We know better than ALL journalists, including the ones who interviewed him/her, whether Karr is high profile or low profile. Misplaced Pages's responsibility is to maintain a "neutral point of view", where neutrality answers to us - which is to say, our more officious users - alone! Wnt (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I know you're probably not old enough to remember it, Wnt; most people who edit Misplaced Pages aren't. "Media frenzy" is how our reliable sources, in critiquing their own actions, termed it, to the point that a gag order had to be made and family friends and former classmates were called upon to "tell all", most of it unverifiable. (Half a dozen refs, you can read the article yourself.) Risker (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I still fail to see your point. That some of the media went ape means the sources are somehow unsuitable to use in an article? That somehow this article can't be written neutrally now because the sources are tainted? Baby & bathwater out the window. There may be a valid reason to delete this (ignore all rules, is probably the most applicable), but that we are going to impeach the NYT over this is a melon-scratcher.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Are you suggesting that whenever a gag order is issued, that Misplaced Pages should give up trying to cover a topic? Even your first source, in the midst of decrying a rush to judgment, speaks of a "creepy narrative", while the second merely describes the sort of frenzy to be seen in any widely publicized case, of which we cover hundreds. Even the BLP violation that started the ball rolling here has to do only with the point that the police lost a computer and wrongly thought they could use a printout in a court proceeding; I don't think we have to beat ourselves up about it the way we would if we'd made such a statement about someone in a different situation. I see no possible justification for us to do anything but cover the facts as they are known to us. Wnt (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Using good judgement/common sense suggests that at least in this case we should look at the sources in context. This remains a hyped-up incident in an extremely hyper-sensationalized case. Reich's involvement in that case is her sole notability and everything else we've pulled into the article is traced to her false confession. She has not been convicted of any crime except on Misplaced Pages where every minutia is tied together to tell one facet of one story. It's simply not a good reporting of her life because it is all through the prism of one event. She was made into the ultimate bogeymen by the media but only Misplaced Pages is sustaining that against the spirit of our own BLP. It's time to "drop the stick" on this one. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Spare us the histrionics; Nothing in the Karr's biography is unsourced, as you yourself are well aware. We are not doing him any "harm". There is nothing in this article about him that may be considered contentious that isn't backed up by multiple sources. "Spirit of BLP" -- just another phrase for "i don't like it".Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I think those comments pretty much say it all. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Strong delete: very marginal notability, and enough harm has been done to the article subject that I doubt that any article on the subject can be neutral or ethical. Sceptre 18:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. I pretty much agree that this person only has an article because of one event, making a false confession, and that this should fall under BLP1E. PS: I'm old enough to remember the media frenzy. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, what caused me to comment here, and not to accept BLP1E, is this stuff about "The Immaculates" and Samantha Spiegel. Admittedly, the stories I'm seeing are just reprinting her comments without much sign of independent investigation, and we should be very careful not to lend too much credibility, but given the whole creepy world surrounding this case (not just Karr) it's not the sort of thing that Misplaced Pages should ethically ignore. I mean, people worry about how our coverage might affect one individual who is already in media outlets around the world, but how are we going to feel if we open a newspaper next year or in five years and read that there are thousands of "Immaculates" in a gradually expanding cultural phenomenon? P.S. for you folks concerned about BLP, take a gander at that last sentence of the JonBenet Ramsay lead paragraph with the "citation needed" and see what you think... Wnt (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If you have a BLP concern about another article you obviously should address it both there and possibly at the BLP notice board, that's what it's there for. As for the Immaculates, i don't see how Misplaced Pages is responsible for protecting the world's children from every potential cult - and there are thousands of them, let alone their friends and relatives who are far more likely to molest them than any stranger. And all of that likely would be ignored without any proof had it not been for the initial non-connection/false confession to the Ramsey case. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I just went ahead and removed it. As for our responsibilities, true, we're not responsible for protecting the world's children. But, when we go ahead and block the spontaneous efforts of others, we can become responsible. For comparison, it's not the responsibility of a person walking down the street to plant hazard markers around an open trench. But if you go ahead and toss all the markers currently present into the trench because you think they're unsightly, you become responsible if someone falls into it. Wnt (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that's an apt analogy for something but i simply disagree with the gist of it applying here. We are not here to advertise the failings of someone nor are we here to act as a warning system so everyone is alerted to them. That simply makes no sense. If the Immaculates become noteworthy in any way except a reported on rumor - via someone who is documented for falsely confessing to a high-profile crime - then maybe it's worth covering. Try wedging it into the JonBenet article from where it grew out of, and see if anyone there objects. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• redirect Most of the sordid details aren't relevant to Jon Benet. If Karr pops up again in the news, this can be addressed then. Or if someone cares to start this from scratch, that is their business. If the latter happens, we should hope they be judicious in their approach.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates