Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:18, 13 December 2013

10 December 2013

2013 Saltsjöbanan train crash

2013 Saltsjöbanan train crash (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

as this is an event (crash), none of the keep !voters addressed concerns or provided any real evidence of WP:PERSISTENT coverage. 2 keep !voters cited an unreleased report as evidence of persistent coverage. yet an unreleased report is not actually evidence. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse The discussion was almost entirely based on the notability guidelines and, having considered them, people are entitled to take a view of whether an article is warranted. An AfD notability discussion is not like a game of whist – comments like "WP:EVENT trumps WP:GNG" do not represent guidelines or policy and neither is there a policy that "Libstar trumps other cards". There was no agreement on whether the topic meets the guidelines or on whether the article should be deleted. Thincat (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse I could have understood (even if not approved) a delrev for a keep closure, but it was clear there was no consensus in the discussion, and arguments as WP:PERSISTENT can't be properly assessed given the time frame. LibStar being very anxious to erase the encyclopedia piecemeal is not a deletion rationale either. --cyclopia 10:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

your use of WP:NOTHERE is quite an accusation of an experienced editor. LibStar (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse - Clearly no consensus in the discussion. Correct closure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse "no consensus" looks like it was the correct close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse although a clear keep would have been within closer discretion, given the poor quality of the pro-deletion arguments. Jclemens (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse a clear keep would have been better, but no consensus is correct. There was enough international coverage, as I have read about this Swedish train accident in both Dutch and Irish news sources. The Banner talk 22:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse I was on the deleting side of this but it's clear that we do not have a consensus on the notability of this accident. Mangoe (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse There was no consensus and the closer appropriately reflected that view. JodyB _talk 14:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Henry Earl

Henry Earl (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't feel the closing administrator properly understood the consensus here. Both votes on each side were policy-based, with the deleters believing it a BLP violation and a one event, while the keepers feeling it was a GNG pass and the fact that coverage wasn't based on a single event makes him ineligible for BLP1E. I feel at the very least this should've been a relist. Consensus to me didn't look especially clear on either side. Beerest 2 talk 20:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Note while it is a bluelink, the article is not restored - instead it is now a redirect to Henry Earle with the history erased. Beerest 2 talk 20:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• The closer didn't specify BLP1E (which is what most of the delete !votes were based upon) but rather the (accurate) notion that just because a topic meets the GNG doesn't mean we need to have an article on it. I'd claim however that A) that argument didn't have consensus at all and B) such an IAR closing should have an especially strong consensus. The BLP1E arguments were misguided at best in any case as is stretches the defintion of event to the point of breaking to have it go over a period of decades. Overturn to no consensus as that discussion had none and there was no argument strong enough to justify deletion. Hobit (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from closing admin: I'm always happy to relist a debate if there is very little participation or the consensus is unclear, but in this case I felt there was sufficient participation and a clear enough consensus to warrant a close after the standard 7 days. 28bytes (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - OK, obviously I am biased here, but seriously, people are getting desperate to keep what amounts to little more than an "OMG THIS GUY IS BAD" page. BLP1E is perfectly valid, when the vast majority of coverage was routine arrest reports. 15 votes for delete, 9 for keep (discounting the two extra that were clearly the same person) isn't a clear consensus, but it is definitely weighted towards delete. And topics that meet GNG but fail BLP1E are routinely deleted. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm too literal, but I'm not seeing a single event here. It is a series of things spread out over decades. It's a single "claim" but so too is "baseball player" or some such. I'm not clear how this meets BLP1E but a baseball player doesn't. (I do get that this is a negative BLP and I can see why that matters, but I don't see how it makes BLP1E expand to such a broad thing, though IAR could make good sense here.) Further, the closer didn't cite BLP1E, so I don't see how that is relevant... Hobit (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, Hobit, what part of "I'm therefore convinced that deletion is compatible with both WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG." and "I'm persuaded by the arguments that WP:BLP1E applies to this article." isn't BLP1E being cited by the closer? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmm, apparently the part I didn't read. Opps. I will note that BLP1E wasn't mentioned before that, so it's unclear how that conclusion was reached (still not sure how I missed it though...). I'll still ask the question--how is this one event? Hobit (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Given that BLP1E is clearly mentioned twice, one of which is in the concluding sentence, I'm not sure how it could be clearer (I may be so bold to suggest that you look at it with a fresh set of eyes in a few hours after a rest, that may help). Anyway, those quibbles aside, BLP1E comes up because the only non-routine coverage is for the alleged 1000th arrest. Everything else has been a routine "he got arrested again" type piece, and it is irrelevant who carries such a piece at that point; it's still just routine, and is still just literally the same thing over and over again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Sound policy-based rationale, and within admin discretion given the numbers for and against. Andreas JN466 22:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • What policy are you referring to here? I got the sense of an IAR deletion from the closing statement, but I'm willing to change if on-point policy exists supporting this. Hobit (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus It doesn't seem like there is perfect consensus on what to do with the article. I think that the keeps and deleters both had strong arguments that were both based on policy. I voted keep, but I can see where the delete voters are coming from. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 22:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: The comments of the closing administrator are perfectly rationale, sensible and acceptable, I see no issue with deleting an article that passes the General Notability Guidelines, especially in the event of biographies where the notability is derived from negative coverage of embarrassing or compromising events. There are always these odd little biographies that appear, where someone passes our notability threshold by accident rather than by design and it's sensible to allow the necessary leeway to permit deletion. I suppose we could go to the trouble of trying to tweak notability policy but that adds more complexity, a sensible deletion, as was carried out in this case, backed up by a strong and well thought out rationale is the best way forward. I've no issues at all with the deletion and commend the closing administrator, 28bytes on their close. If I was into all that soppy shit, I'd give them a cookie. Nick (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse the 1E was him being arrested too many times. It was a clear violation and the consensus was correct, despite all the canvassing on both sides. Secret 22:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• How are multiple arrests over several decades "one event" again? I mean, at the very least this DRV should result in the rejection of that rationale for deletion and the conceiving of a new one. We don't need to set some sort of bizarre precedent where "one event" suddenly becomes "one common thread that spans multiple events" as that effectively upends the whole basis for that part of the policy. BLP1E is about living people who are minor figures in a single event of fixed duration. People who are repeatedly covered in-depth by national media for something that keeps happening to them or something they keep doing over many years are not people for whom BLP1E is meant to apply.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Correct. To dismiss this as "one event" requires an abuse of language. What happened was a series of events. Everyking (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    • @The Devil's Advocate and Everyking: I think it's a mistake to take BLP1E so literally that we ignore the idea behind it, which is to protect living people who would not even begin to meet our definition of "notable" were it not for a single aspect of their lives (in this case, an arrest record for low-level infractions for trespassing and the like) that caught the media's attention. It's true that multiple arrests are by definition more than one discrete event, but we shouldn't construe BLP1E so narrowly that we require a literal "single event" and lose sight of the broader goal behind our BLP policy, of which BLP1E is a part: Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. There was a strong argument among the participants of the AfD that the existence of the article violated BLP1E – if not its letter, than certainly its spirit – and that argument was not, to my reading, effectively rebutted by the (smaller number of) participants who argued the article should be kept. 28bytes (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't say Earl falls under the "low-profile individual" (he made an appearance on a highly-viewed talk show to discuss his numerous arrests) so I still don't believe BLP1E applies. Basically, if he died, he would be notable? Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 03:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Countless people are considered notable for a single aspect of their lives. Being a politician is generally a single aspect of a person's life, for instance. No one considers that sort of thing an event and the only reason people are behaving differently is because of some perception about this being malicious. I think this whole conversation about "protecting him" is actually a tad patronizing since it ignores the fact the guy in question has nothing really going for him in his life except his Internet fame. He is a 60-something homeless guy with an addiction problem whose spent a quarter of his life in jail for minor offenses. I am pretty sure the brightest parts of his day involve some person saying "you're that guy on the Internet!" and asking to take a picture with him or get his autograph.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Stop making dumb arguments eh! This isn't a politician, this isn't a major league baseball player, this is a habitual drunk guy that lives in doorways and gets arrested for it, who was exploited by a TV show for entertainment, and is exploited by newspapers as space filler. John lilburne (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
          • What is dumb is your subjective and frankly offensive assessment of major league baseball players as somehow more deserving consideration than homeless people. --cyclopia 10:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
            • Homeless people deserve attention, I've started organisations campaigning for housing for them, sued local governments for not providing accommodation, initiated self help groups. But what they don't need is the attention of some dweeb compiling a encyclopedia article that is no more than pointing the finger at 'that guy'. What you had was an article that says habitually drunk guy gets arrested for being habitually drunk, that isn't an encyclopedia article, it isn't even a wp article, what you have is a pile of steaming horseshit. Write the article that is a balanced coverage of this guy's life and why he is notable and most of the delete votes will change to keep. As is often said there is no deadline here, so go away and write the proper article we can wait. John lilburne (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
            • Well, they kind of are more deserving. Being notable and worthy of public attention for one's physical and athletic achievements is something to be proud of. Being scrutinized by the media because one's life is so in shambles that one keeps committing misdemeanor after misdemeanor, crime after crime, is a tragedy. Mr. Earl needs help; Alcoholics Anonymous, job training, life counseling, whatever it is that this country's social services can offer to get this person back on his feet. He isn't a politician or an athlete or a musician, people regularly glued to throngs of paparazzi. He's a human being, Cyclopia, one that does not deserve to have his 15 minutes of fame cemented into an encyclopedia for all-time. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
              • Sorry, I didn't know that there was a hierarchy where -given the same amount/quality of sources coverage- some people deserve the (admittedly odd) honour of an article while some else do not. Maybe do we think that people living on the street are less human than people playing sports? Yes, Mr. Earl needs a lot of help. How this has to do, for better or worse, with coverage in an encyclopedia is beyond me. If anything, given that we're talking about help, the article here can make more people aware of his case and perhaps it will end up attracting the help he so sorely needs.--cyclopia 15:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
          • The dumb argument is saying "one event" can mean a large number of events with a recurring theme. Everything else just stems from that initial stupidity. Also, stow the babble about "exploiting" and "humanity" since I am fairly certain you have not even bothered to figure out what the guy himself thinks of his notoriety.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
            • The event is being arrested for being drunk and sleeping in doorways. Being arrested once, twice, or a thousand times does change the event. I drive 30 miles to work and 30 miles back each day. According to you that I've done it 6500+ times in the last 15 years has changed the event of me driving along the A45 into something notable. John lilburne (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
              • First of all, I think you've just made a "slippery-slope" argument which generally isn't helpful. But in any case, even going down that slope, your conclusion is mistaken. In the case of your example, it does mean that if you got ongoing coverage for that drive, we'd not consider it one event. Ongoing coverage of multiple events is not a single event. I think the SS argument is actually on the side of those that think this isn't an event. By your logic a person notable for playing baseball would be notable for "one event" (playing baseball) and we shouldn't cover them per BLP1E. It's not the best argument, but it does show that taken to an extreme your argument about events creates a nonsensical result. Hobit (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
                • Many of you have already slide down the slope into a effluent tank. If what you have is someone that has played baseball in the local park for N years then they are not notable, and such a person wouldn't have an article here. Baseball players are included here simply because they play baseball each week, they are included because they are members of notable teams, and they take part in otherwise notable games. It is a different category of notable and you are confusing logical types when you assume the notability is derived simply for participating in a game of baseball. None of these guy's arrests are individually notable. John lilburne (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse - The closing admin accepted the argument that the arrests, in totality, are the "event". How narrowly or how broadly to interpret policy such as WP:BLP1E is well within admin discretion. Re-arguing this point at Deletion Review will not gain traction, as "I disagree" is not a valid basis for filing a complaint here. Tarc (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - Don't like the BLP1E rationale? Then see the policy of Ignore All Rules and improve the encyclopedia by snipping this unencyclopedic cruft. Carrite (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this is actually a good type of situation for IAR. But in general IAR shouldn't be used when there isn't consensus behind the notion that it does improve the encyclopedia. IAR isn't an excuse for not liking the consensus (or lack thereof) but rather a way to agree to follow consensus even if the rules as written say we should not. Hobit (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Question on Closing Comment - Ignoring the above discussion on BLP1E and No Consensus/Endorse Closure, I would like to make sure if 28bytes was correct to close the debate. To first quote 28bytes from the AfD: " Countering BLP1E (and WP:BLP concerns in general) are arguments that the subject meets WP:GNG, but as the introduction to that guideline states: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Misplaced Pages is not, particularly the rule that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. " The problem I have is that 28bytes cites Misplaced Pages:INDISCRIMINATE as the main rational. While WP:GNG, which was cited does mention WP:INDISCRIMINATE, none of the users in the discussion cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE in their comments as a reason for the article to be deleted nor made a reference to the text of the policy. My question is, can the closer cite a policy that was not a part of the discussion as their reason to end the discussion? I ask as it is only the closer who has made the argument to delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (I would like to take a moment here to note that I didn't directly bring this up to 28bytes since this review was started shortly after the discussion was closed; not to mention that I just found out about the review. Thus, I would like to request time for 28bytes to respond if, and only if, the closer is not permitted to cite a policy that was not a part of the discussion as the main rational.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • @Super Goku V: It was not my intention to use any policies in my close that had not been explicitly cited by the participants in the AfD. The main policies and guidelines being argued in the AfD were WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. In the case of the latter, I quoted some of the introduction to the GNG that I felt was relevant to the discussion, my point being that GNG explicitly allows that subjects may have multiple, reliable source references and still not merit a standalone article. That the quote includes a reference to WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not mean that I closed the discussion on that basis; my close was based solely on weighing the BLP/BLP1E and GNG arguments which had been brought up by the participants. I believe the last sentence of the close makes clear which policies and guidelines I considered operative to the debate: I'm therefore convinced that deletion is compatible with both WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. 28bytes (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    • @28bytes: - Alright, but I am unsure if what you are saying is what you mean due to the beginning sentence in your response just now. You are saying that you mentioned WP:INDISCRIMINATE in the closing, but did not use it when you closed the discussion, is that correct? As a second question, and somewhat unrelated to this discussion, when you said that "this subject does not merit a stand-alone article," was it an throwaway sentence or did you mean that there could be a combined article of some kind or type? --Super Goku V (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Recovered from previous revision. George Ho (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
      • @Super Goku V: I'm not sure how I can be more clear: the close was based on my analysis of the WP:BLP(1E) and WP:GNG arguments. You seem to be suggesting that closers shouldn't be allowed to quote from the policies and guidelines that the participants in the deletion discussion have brought up if the quote includes any reference to another policy. I don't think that's a reasonable restriction to put on XfD closers. 28bytes (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
        • @28bytes: "It was not my intention to 'use' any policies in my close that had not been explicitly cited by the participants in the AfD." I was referring to the word use in your sentence since it threw me off on what you meant, though I understand now. My problem is that I am 'still' unsure if the closer cite a policy that was not a part of the discussion. You are implying that an admin is allowed to do so, but I remember reading that the closer must make due with what arguments that they have, not the ones they wish to have. The problem is that we never had the in-depth discussion on WP: what Misplaced Pages is not and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, nor did we have one on how far presumed goes. When you said, "this deletion discussion, has, from my reading of it, concluded that this subject does not merit a stand-alone article," I am not sure if it is taken on the basis of presumed or if we are still referring to WP:BLP1E. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
          • @Super Goku V: The point is that the GNG explicitly says that multiple reliable sources are necessary but not sufficient for a topic to merit a standalone article. In other words, the GNG does not trump BLP or BLP1E, if those policies apply. The question then becomes, do they apply? Those favoring deletion argued that they do apply, those opposing argued that they do not. I found the arguments that they do apply to be more convincing, and more in line with policy, and I closed the debate accordingly. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up WP:INDISCRIMINATE; I have already explained that it was merely part of a larger quote from the GNG and not the basis for the close. I supposed I could have redacted or elided the part where the GNG mentions it, but I assumed that people would be able to tell that it was a passing reference within a quote and not the basis for the close. Are we on the same page now, at least on that point? 28bytes (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist This is a super!vote, and one that also introduced an argument not present in the discussion, as Super Goku V (talk · contribs) above correctly notices. Also: the BLP1E reading is also fatally flawed: there is no single event that the (very well sourced) material shown in the discussion would be able to be redirected/merged, in principle. Coverage was about the person. Saying that a string of similar events can be conglomerated as BLP1E is akin to saying that Mick Jagger is a BLP1E because, well, all he's known for is singing in a string of records and concerns. --cyclopia 10:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. The closing rationale was preposterous, and this needs to be reconsidered by people using logical arguments. Everyking (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. 28bytes' closure was a reasonable interpretation of the AfD. The question isn't whether you agree with 28bytes' interpretation, but whether his interpretation was within the reasonable bounds of admin discretion. It was. The application of WP:BLP1E is reasonable (although not a slam-dunk), and I don't see any procedural reason to overturn 28bytes' proper closure. MastCell  07:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • @MastCell: To make sure I understand this, as this is getting a bit confusing, the closing user can cite a policy that was not a part of the discussion in the closer, is that correct? --Super Goku V (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Is that a hypothetical question? I don't see anything like that occurring in this case. Could you clarify which policy you mean? MastCell  18:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
      • From the closing comment, " A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Misplaced Pages is not, particularly the rule that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information.}} " WP:INDISCRIMINATE wasn't cited or mentioned in the AfD until 28bytes brought it up in the closer. I wanted to confirm if the closer is allowed to cite a policy that wasn't a part of the discussion in the way that occurred. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Note This discussion was recently reopened by the original closing administrator after I had closed under IAR. I'm further placing the article under special BLP enforcement as deleting the information on Mr. Earl could deprive him of attention and income that would cause him harm by impairing a source of income during the holiday season. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• What the fuck do you think you're playing at? Not only did this DRV categorically not vote to overturn the deletion, your reasoning is ridiculous; since when was Misplaced Pages a platform to promote people and enable them to earn more money? Has someone representing Earl been paying you or something? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Article has been temporarily restored for discussion by User:Jclemens and tagged by User:George Ho. Modified. Super Goku V (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so I didn't undelete it temporarily. I just tagged it as "temporarily undeleted". --George Ho (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. I must of assumed you did so from the talk page edit earlier. Sorry about that. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• (Came here via WP:ANI) Endorse closure. Reading through the original discussion, like User:28bytes, I was persuaded by the arguments presented that WP:BLP1E applies to the article. Utterly reasonable close. StAnselm (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• I've vacillated about this one several times. Like others here I'd be tempted to endorse it, but it's not completely clear-cut. The point that the close was not entirely based on arguments to be found in the discussion does look like a valid one. I think the perfect solution would have been if 28bytes had raised his point in the discussion, so the next sysop to come along would have had a complete debate to close.

  I'm also a bit concerned that Misplaced Pages's BLP1E rules are being used to protect criminals from the consequences of their actions. I don't really approve of that. To protect suspected criminals seems absolutely right and reasonable, but once someone's been convicted, we're in a different place entirely: they're a criminal, their conviction is a matter of public record and it's right to disseminate information about it for the protection of those who, you know, aren't criminals.

  And finally I'm concerned that this is another point-scoring exercise by a Misplaced Pages Review successor-site. With closes like this one, we're allowing and encouraging people who were kicked off-Wiki to continue their various moral crusades by alternative means. I don't approve; it's hard to fail at Misplaced Pages (you've got to be really dumb about how things work here to do that) and those few who've managed it don't deserve a voice here.

  Overall I'm going to say that while 28bytes' close was understandable in the context of the debate, and it was within the discretion that DRV traditionally gives to sysops, there are legitimate concerns. It's not right to use the word "overturn", and it won't be productive to relist while Wikipediocracy users and sockpuppets are interested in it, so I'll go with restore.

  As a final point, please will the closer of this DRV take into account the effect of Wikipediocracy-canvassing on a biographical article. There are some views and opinions present in this debate that shouldn't be heard.—S Marshall T/C 09:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• We're not talking about someone who regularly goes out and beats people up, stabs them, or otherwise murdering them. We're talking about someone who has a serious drinking problem, and is almost certainly homeless; one of those is clearly now a medical issue, and the other is not entirely in his control either. I simply cannot therefore agree with your stance of "He's a criminal, so he's not worth protecting" - that's just wrong. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, specifially per MastCell: The question isn't whether you agree with 28bytes' interpretation, but whether his interpretation was within the reasonable bounds of admin discretion. It was. — Scott • talk 10:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse On my reading of the close 28bytes didn't rely on WP:INDISCRIMINATE as his rationale. Instead he quoted language from GNG that referred (among other things) to it, in order to explain that the article meeting the GNG would not necessarily mean it should be kept and therefore that the arguments focusing on this did not rebut the BLP1E and BLP arguments. Neljack (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn Claiming BPL1E applies to individuals known for multiple events is insane. A second insane argument cited by the closing admin is that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Can someone please explain how this article in any way resembles a summary-only descriptions of fiction, a lyrics database, an excessive listing of statistics or an log of software updates? Closing admins are supposed to ignore invalid arguments. 28bytes is normally pretty level-headed, but I don't see how this can possibly be construed to be a reasonable close. Let's face it: this is a clear and obvious example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please explain how this article in any way resembles a summary-only descriptions of fiction, a lyrics database, an excessive listing of statistics or an log of software updates? Yes. You're starting to create the conditions for a database of people who have been arrested multiple times, if being arrested multiple times (and not the reason behind the arrests) is a claim to notability. As Black Kite indicates below, if you really start going down the route of providing an entry for "the most arrested man in Lexington" do we have an entry for every person who is the most arrested man in their town, or do we restrict our entries to those who have been arrested, what was it, 1000 times or more ?

It's trivia, it's the last item on the news at night, it's the And finally item, newspaper column inch filler, it's padding, and it's fundamentally not encyclopedic in nature, any more than the Yellow Pages is truly encyclopedic. Nick (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a gross misinterpretation of policy. The article is prose. It doesn't come close to resembling an index. This is a classic WP:IDONTLIKE situation which is why those in favor of deletion are bending over backwards to twist policy around to mean things that they don't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What policy ? Nick (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse The close is within reasonable bounds. It's a fairly obvious BLP1E, and really - "the most arrested man in Lexington"? Please. Black Kite (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse. Well within administrator discretion, given the !votes in the AfD and the particular care we apply to BLPs. Deor (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn. Article meets general notability guideline and is not a case of "one event" notability. The subject has been arrested more than 1000 times, and has become somewhat of a folk hero, not unlike Leatherman (vagabond). Suggest we get a picture and expand the article. Jehochman 13:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse. (am I supposed to mention that I came here through the ANI thread?) I can easily understand that others in good faith don't think BLP1E applies in this case, even if I disagree. But this was a proper interpretation of consensus at the AFD, and doesn't violate policy, so there are no grounds for overturning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse - Closing admin's rationale was well grounded in policy. This was obviously a borderline case either way, but 28bytes' rationale is sound. Resolute 14:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse- Reasonable reading of consensus. The community is allowed to make editorial decisions in borderline cases like this one, and I think the closing administrator made a reasonable judgment of the result of the community discussion. Reyk _YO! 15:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn and (shudder) relist. I did not participate in the original AfD, but reading it now, I cannot agree that the original close, while thoughtfully argued, reflected a consensus of the participating editors. Nor can I say that Jclemens's close of the DRV, while also thoughtfully argued, represented a distillation of consensus. Both of these were opinions, joining the others expressed in the discussion. As far as I can see, there has been no consensus. On the merits, I don't think BLP1E is applicable to someone who has been the subject of repeated coverage in multiple media, including national media, over a number of years. I also share S Marshall's concerns, expressed above, about the overuse of the "BLP" mantra to attack certain types of sourced content. There may be other values at stake, but the discussion has not reflected any broad agreement over which way those values cut.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus BLP1E does not apply to this case in any way, shape, or form, and it was raised by only a handful of editors in the AfD. 28bytes also threw in his own reasons for deleting that were not mentioned at all in the discussion. No one really questioned that the article passed WP:GNG, but rather invoked some other reason for deletion and none of them invoked WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It does not apply in this case anyway. So basically, 28bytes favored a small minority of editors invoking a very novel interpretation of policy and added in his own reasons for deleting the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The idea that I "added in own reasons for deleting the article" is completely false. I weighed the WP:BLP(1E) and WP:GNG arguments put forth by the participants, period. I've made this clear several times. It's fine if you don't agree with the close, but please do not mischaracterize it. 28bytes (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Where was the WP:INDISCRIMINATE vote? Also, how exactly did you weigh those arguments? Nearly every editor voting keep firmly rejected BLP1E because the coverage spanned a decade and included multiple events, which is exactly the type of situation where BLP1E is explicitly stated not to apply. The number of those rejecting BLP1E was greater than those invoking it or defending it. Of those who did not invoke BLP1E, their reasons were either undefined, not based in policy, or refuted over the course of the discussion. How you came to conclude that any consensus existed eludes me. I find it especially incredible that an admin of your standing would conclude BLP1E was the consensus.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• The close was not based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it was based on weighing the WP:BLP(1E) and WP:GNG arguments. I've explained this repeatedly. Please read what I've already written. If you're suggesting I should have "weighed" the merits of the BLP1E argument by counting the number of people who cited it, I'm afraid that it doesn't work that way. 28bytes (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, you are just picking the arguments that you wish to address, like you just picked the arguments you agreed with in the AfD. That the keep votes overwhelmingly rejected BLP1E per the very reasons the policy gives for rejecting such an argument is what matters.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• endorse I was not a participant in the discussion, but it seems to me that the burst of watercooler news coverage is reasonably interpreted as WP:ONEEVENT. I also have to say that the precedent of similar cases in the past of people being the subject of freak show publicity is that we don't stigmatize them just because the media and internet make a fuss over them. Mangoe (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• It was not really a "burst" of coverage as there has been national coverage going back a decade.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• This particular "one event" has in fact been going on for 43 years.—S Marshall T/C 18:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• This isn't really about those events. It's about the interest in him as a filler story in the media. It also has an abusive quality of treating its subject as a sideshow spectacle. Mangoe (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse Quite frankly I'd endorse just about any argument to delete this terrible article. Under no conditions should we be hosting negative articles about borderline-notable living people. If the rules don't permit deletion for this reason they should be modified to allow it. This article adds infinitesimally to the sum total of human knowledge while disparaging a poor person who is fed on by media vultures when the news gets slow. We are better than this. ThemFromSpace 18:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• While I fully understand and sympathize with the principle of what you are saying about the article, I think that is a bit misguided. It appears he is well-liked in the Lexington area and on the Internet largely because of his arrest record (he is also apparently a good fella), odd as that may seem to you. He also seems to like the attention it gets him from what I have read of interviews. That aspect was not really made clear in earlier versions of the article, but I think the version after my changes prior to the DRV being re-opened make create a more sympathetic image of him. More could be done to make it a sympathetic bio that accurately reflects how positively he is perceived and I think it would be good to allow that.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Isn't that violating WP:IDONTLIKEIT? --Super Goku V (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse. Valid interpretation of discussion and exrcise of discretion by closing admin, giving appopriate weight to serious BLP concerns. WJBscribe (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse. Valid closure, based on a valid interpretation of WP:BLP policy as shown in the AfD discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn. Interpreting BLP1E to apply here is a dramatic overreach of the policy and is not valid. A "single" behavior pattern carried out over more than 1000 iterations is in no way the same thing as a single event. Subject clearly meets WP:GNG. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Closing admin claims "sufficient participation and a clear enough consensus" here, yet in closing rationale used the spectre of sockpuppetry to "instead focus on the weight of the argument." I find that change difficult to reconcile, especially after the misapplication of BLP1E. -- Norvy (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse - The closing administrator correctly interpreted policy-backed consensus in this AFD; AFDs are not votes. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn bad close by 28bytes, per A Quest for Knowledge, et al. Meets GNG, is not one event. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn because WP:BLP1E does not apply to a clear years-long series of events, and so was incorrectly invoked for the close. In addition, the Internet-glomming-on makes this notable on those grounds as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus, and relist. A supervote occurs when an admin replaces their discretion for that of other editors. Here, there was no consensus on how to excercize that discretion, and BLP1E, by its terms, does not mandate such a closure. Thus, the close was a supervote. The reason for no consensus was made clear by the sources such as Newsweek, which showed that the person was noted for 'songs, media, and t-shirts' made with this person as their subject. (See past examples in a similar vein: Emperor Norton and Captain Streeter). Relist to flesh out the other issues of harm and unencyclopedic material. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse - A perfectly appropriate assessment of consensus, and closure employing a sense of admin judgemnt correctly applied in the case of BLP issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn-- there was no consensus The BLP related arguments are not germain. The article as significant sourcing and thus meets the GNG.01:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)
• Overturn - per Beyond My Ken and others correctly noting the general notability of the article. This should not even have been nominated for deletion. BLP argument is specious, in my view. Let's make this right. Jusdafax 02:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse. First, {{DRV is not AFD2}}. On to the substance, I see a perfectly reasonable closure citing participants' arguments about BLP1E (and why it applies), and then further citing policy that GNG is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for an article. While, technically, it could have been closed as "no consensus", the delete was a reasonable choice, and in line with a common-sense approach that in close calls, BLP should err on the side of caution. No such user (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse Most of the "overturn" votes seem to be based on AfD arguments, rather than on the correctness of the closure of the AfD. The closing seems to be an entirely legitimate appraisal of the arguments, and appropriately leans on the side of caution with a BLP. First Light (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• I think that writing a complete biographical article on Earl is not possible and that this article should be deleted. (Arrest record of Henry Earl also feels inappropriate.) I need to study the BLP1E arguments more closely before making a bolded recommendation. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. There was clearly a wide range of opinion, with Warden making cogent arguments. By contrast, I cannot make any sense out of the closing admin's train of thought. Unlike most of the deleters who made an invalid BLP1E argument, the closer says instead that having actual sources (WP:GNG) only creates a 'presumption', which he can overturn by saying that Misplaced Pages is not an 'indiscriminate collection of information'. But nowhere does he explain what is indiscriminate information - though I should assume that how the homeless are treated, the fact that the county spends much more money jailing this guy every other night than they would giving him free housing, is something that should never be covered, whereas, say, the diamond collar a celebrity buys for her dog would automatically be notable. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia about the wealthy of the world - we know that whole towns in Pakistan are rarely notable, for example. Wnt (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• The same Warden who has been abusing Misplaced Pages for years, and whose main account has been blocked for sockpuppetry, you mean? And if it's a proper town, it WILL be notable; just because there isn't an article on it doesn't make it non-notable. Considering those two fundamental errors in your statement there, it's safe to say the rest is a load of rubbish. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ad hominem arguments are fallacious. Warden could be the worst wikipedian ever, or the best, and in both cases this would have nothing to do with the value of a specific point he makes.--cyclopia 10:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Either people's actions mean they forfeit their right to a voice in this debate, or they don't. But neither of you can have it both ways. Perhaps it's true that, by sockpuppetry or misjudgment, Colonel Warden and/or Jclemens have lost their right to be heard in this debate----in which case the Wikipediocracy people have too, haven't they? Alternatively, if we're prepared to listen to Colonel Warden and/or Jclemens, then we also have to listen to all the white knights from Wikipediocracy who're coming galloping to the rescue of the world's most-arrested man, because, yanno, it's a BLP so delete zomg!—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Lexington's most arrested man. Not the world's. A rather large difference there, but don't let the facts stop you! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• • A rather large difference there...but an irrelevant one, since what matters is the sources' coverage, not what he is notable for.--cyclopia 12:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's entirely relevant to the bollocks that Marshall has been spouting. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Complete and utter bollocks" would be putting it mildly. — Scott • talk 12:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

He really is quite widely reported as the "World's most arrested man". That's repeated in places like the New York Post, the Huffington Post, and the Daily Mirror. Do those sources fill me with confidence? Not really; it's all churnalism from the original source, which is The Smoking Gun. I'd want a discussion about reliability of sources before calling him that in the article. But, "complete and utter bollocks"? Really?—S Marshall T/C 13:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty sad that a 42-year-old man is using phrases like "white knights" in a BLP discussion. Please, save that stuff for 4chan or whatever other website you picked it up from. — Scott • talk 13:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

What a contemptible comment. White knights are not a new phrase, but even if they were, there is nothing about someone's age that should disallow them from using a common phrase. You are calling for discrimination against an editor simply because you know one seemingly innocuous biographical fact about him. Just as you are calling for discrimination against a kind of article because it is about someone poor. Wnt (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I see there's also some complain about Warden above, but I don't care what that is either. When I look at whether an article should be kept I'm looking at the article, not a bunch of dossiers. I don't care who is what age, what sex, and I don't have the Ph.D. in Astrology required to recognize suspected sockpuppets by behavioral evidence. When I read over the comments, his stood out as particularly reasonable, and so I recognize them as such. Wnt (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it's really a comment about my age, so much as a veiled threat or warning that the Wikipediocrats will dox me if I carry on. Which does seems likely enough; but if I was concerned about that, I wouldn't put my name and date of birth on my userpage.—S Marshall T/C 14:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it is a direct statement that I think you are acting childishly, which surprises me given the age you state on your user page. Hope that helps. — Scott • talk 15:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's cute to see people like Scott Martin, who babble of ethics on- and off-wiki, resorting to insults, veiled threats and thoughtful arguments as "complete and utter bollocks". Makes you think how trustworthy they are. --cyclopia 15:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That was as much a "veiled threat" as you are the Pope. Have a nice day. — Scott • talk 15:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Appartently you have chosen to ignore WP:NPA for no reason whatsoever. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing "childish" about S Marshall's responses. From the time of the Fae case, ArbCom has been misinterpreting the guidance people came up with here about outing, but the text is nonetheless quite clear and well-justified in telling people to avoid "opposition research". It is a distraction at best, and the notion that you can take some number off a piece of paper and just because you know it about somebody they start losing rights -- that is the sick core of NSAism. And let's be clear; anyone offsite looking up somebody's name in a directory and posting "dox" is indeed a mere infant pretending to be a secret agent in the shadow of the NSA building. Wnt (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse. I read a rough consensus in that discussion to set aside a literal reading of the WP:GNG and to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse per MastCell, Resolute and others - the close was a reasonable reflection of consensus and policy-based argument in the deletion discussion. This is not the venue to re-argue the deletion case. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse. The closer correctly cited the actual text of the GNG's fifth bullet-point which says that coverage creates "an assumption, not a guarantee", that a subject should be included. JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

What? The closer quoted something correctly is not a DRV rationale. Nor does that section quoted give the closer discretion.Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

People above are saying things like "The article has significant sourcing and thus meets the GNG" to imply that the close was wrong. I am countering that line by pointing out that the closer was correct to realise, and cite the actual GNG guideline as saying, that coverage does not necessarily mean there should be an article. JohnCD (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Then you misaprehend the argument. That it passes GNG is basically undisputed -- the issue is whether the closer nonetheless, had discretion to delete, given thier rationale. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the words he cited: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have stand-alone article" give him just that discretion. JohnCD (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That does not give the closer discretion, otherwise admins could just delete, here, without a WP:Consensus. The AfD closer is there to act on the editors' discretion not thier own. If they want to excericize thier own discretion, they partcipate in the discussion not close. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of that policy shouldn't be to give editors or admin discretion. It's true that there are a few other policies that might interfere with the usual GNG standard; most notably it talks about a "standalone article", suggesting that something can be notable enough for an article but still be better to merge if it is convenient to do so. That doesn't mean that whatever political focus group someone can line up is free to delete everything it doesn't like! Wnt (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse - the majority of the voters were using the arguments suggested. And just to clarify the wp:BLP1E argument, a man being arrested for any of the things he has been arrested for is not notable. Therefore, and crucially, none of the individual arrests were notable. The only notable thing is the sum total of non-notable events in the same way that adding individual cards to a house of cards is not notable even if you have a notable house of cards at the end because you've added so many. Or a person who is only notable for running across the Sahara getting a new piece on how they are running across the Sahara every night would still only be notable for running across the Sahara. Therefore he is only notable for one thing - the sum total of non-notable events in the same way that the creator of the world's biggest house of cards would be notable for that whether or not they put out a press release each time they added a card. Thus it is believed by many of those voting that it fit the spirit of WP:BLP1E. The (second and final) closure decision was reiterating this and the part of the wp:GNG guideline that said that notable was a necessary but not sufficient condition. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

But that "analysis" is unsupported by the sources. The subject is not notable for just the arrests according to the sources. If an argument such as yours is without evidence, it is mere wish, guess or caprice. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• It is BLP1E not BLP1T. Being notable for one thing that spans over many events is not the same as being notable for one event. The spirit of BLP1E is that we do not create an article on someone involved in your typical flash-in-the-pan news story. People can say this is about admin discretion, but admin discretion does not mean any admin is allowed to alter the meaning of policy by fiat. Changing the meaning of a "single event" to mean "a single recurring theme in a person's life spanning many events" is to completely upend the meaning of the policy itself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• This is straying way too far into re-arguing the AfD, which isn't what DRV is for, but the argument made there was that we aren't considering each individual arrest as an "event", but rather that his notability is from being a multiple-arrestee, i.e. the totality of the arrests is the proverbial "event". That you disagree is duly noted, but more editors are of an opposing point of view. Tarc (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• But that's the point. One event means one event, not one class of events. If we consider a totality of events as a single event, then almost every BLP is a BLP1E. A politician is not notable for each single thing they did in Congress, and many of these things would not be notable per se: they are notable because of the whole sum of their career, and the resulting coverage. Same here. It is insane to arm-twist this so far, and, to put it frankly, also the people who support a 1E interpretation know it well: the argument is done in bad faith just because people do not want the article here, and that's the best straw they can grasp. Invoking IAR would be more honest. --cyclopia 17:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• That's a bit WP:OTHERSTUFF-ish, but again, he isn't notable for being arrested here in 2003, arrested there in 2004, and so on, his notability is as a person arrested lots of times. We're looking at the apple pie; you're looking at the apples, flour, cinnamon, and sugar. Also, a politician isn't notable for the sum of his career, he is notable simply because of the office held. A newly-elected Senator could be run over by a bus the day after the election, and still pass the project's notability criteria. Tarc (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• DRV can be used when "someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly" and consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments, so the strength of the argument for deletion is a factor to consider here. The argument for a BLP1E deletion requires a novel interpretation of the policy that has no precedent. Being arrested multiple times over the course of one's life is not an event, unless you want to completely upend the meaning of the term "event" for the purposes of this policy. Every keep argument made a strong policy-based argument as to why BLP1E did not apply and those arguing for BLP1E were pushing a novel interpretation without pointing out how the policy actually supported that interpretation or even providing a cogent IAR basis for that interpretation. 28bytes picked favorites and that is all there is to it. It was a supervote.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• It isn't novel to employ common sense. Mr. Earl isn't the subject of news sources because he was arrested for public intoxication, disorder, etc...in this or that or the other date & time. He is the subject of news sources due to the unusually high number of times he has been arrested over the years. Do you get it? The arrests aren't notable in and of themselves; the totality is. If he were arrested only 4-5 times over the years, he would be an otherwise unknown individual. His fame, as it were, is due to a single factor; the number of times arrested, hence WP:BLP1E. That is the argument accepted by the closing admin. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(E/c) Unfortunately, it appears that some have not really read the sources. There is nothing to suggest that the subject is unique for just getting arrested multiple times or that Lexington is a unique arresting prone environment. Other people have no doubt gotten arrested many, many times, in city after city, and no source really notices them. The subject was deemed notable by sources for other things that happened, yes in part realted to a 42 year record of multiple incidents, but that is not the only reason why national and regional press became involved writing about the subject. And yes to make "one event" of such a subject is so far out of the realm of the resonable use of languge, that it evidences arbitrary and unsupported reasoning. Follow the sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thesurvivor2299.com

Thesurvivor2299.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was voted to be deleted mainly on the basis of WP:CRYSTAL, which I would agree with. But considering it subsequently proved to be a hoax, and that it obtained a significant amount of press attention by dedicated websites both before and after the fact was made known, I feel there are ground for the page to be re-created and adjusted accordingly. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Question Is there any coverage of the hoax outside of dedicated websites? DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing two mainstream (though not major sources AFAIK) in the article. Hobit (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes.
  • http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fallout-4-teaser-website-is-a-hoax/1100-6416596/
  • http://www.oxm.co.uk/67775/fallout-4-hoaxer-comes-clean-over-thesurvivor2299com-with-a-reddit-ama/
  • http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-12-09-fallout-4-hoaxer-website-designed-to-troll-force-bethesdas-hand
  • http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Fallout-4-Website-Hoax-60934.html
  • http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/11/14/zenimax-media-registers-website-teasing-new-game-possibly-fallout.aspx
  • http://gamingbolt.com/fallout-4-thesurvivor2299-site-is-an-elaborate-hoax
  • http://kotaku.com/why-were-not-buying-those-fallout-4-rumors-1471939984
  • http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/130324-Fallout-4-Teaser-Site-Is-A-Hoax
  • http://www.craveonline.com/gaming/articles/615237-the-pr-behind-the-fake-fallout-4-website-reveals-all
  • http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Fallout-4-PC-218722/News/Fallout-4-Fuck-Yox-TheSurvivor2299com-Scherz-1100643/
  • http://www.4gamer.net/games/039/G003967/20131207004/
  • http://www.gry-online.pl/S013.asp?ID=81939
  • http://www.spill.no/default.aspx?section=artikkel&id=5093
  • And so on. D-d-d-deletion BREAKER. --Niemti (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Appears to meet the GNG. Arguments like CRYSTAL and OR don't make a lot of sense given that CRYSTAL doesn't apply to well-sourced things even if hoaxes and it isn't OR if it's sourced. I'm tempted to !vote to overturn (potentially to keep). My personal preference would have been a redirect to Fallout 4 (also under discussion for deletion, but I'd say this material would save it...). Hobit (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse per Jasca Ducato. 02:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You mean "Overturn to keep/no consensus", Citation needed? --George Ho (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn Deletion The article complies with WP:GNG; it also complies with WP:OR because it is referenced (also noted above). And for WP:CRYSTAL, the article is/was about speculations, not making speculations. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn Deletion Significant developments happened and WP:GNG has been met by a long shot. I will watchlist the article and improve it if it gets undeleted. Ramaksoud2000 05:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn - to no consensus. There's enough sources to plausibly argue that it passes WP:N, while they're perhaps weak enough to plausibly argue it fails WP:N (at least, my perusal of them suggests they're not so far to one side or the other that the closing admin can entirely discount either position). Marginal with respect to WP:N and marginal with respect to headcount should be no consensus. The WP:CRYSTAL argument is what comes out of the north end of a south-facing bull, and should be entirely ignored by the closing admin, of course. WilyD 10:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but no prejudice for re-creation. The article as it stands is a mess but there may be sources out there to support a completely re-written-from-scratch article. Яehevkor ✉ 12:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. For starters, I don't go by a head-count and agree with closer's summary. The deletion argument was not that there aren't reliable sources (or that articles about hoaxes aren't allowed), it's that none of them were in-depth and all were routine video game news coverage. They are only considered in-depth, when it is a review, a commentary, discussion of cultural impact, at least editor's opinion, etc. Here they simply reported the website and followed the fake clues and then reported it was a hoax. Previews, PRs and sensationalized articles like this are commonly dismissed for GNG, because they carry no material besides the original primary source. It's not that most of keep !votes did not say there weren't any sources, it's that these sources weren't shown to adequately satisfy GNG's in-depth criteria. While many users said then and here about abundance of sources, this only satisfies "multiple" and "reliable" (WP:VG/RS) GNG bits. I also respect that others have a different view on GNG threshold that I happen to disagree with in this case. I also don't think material should all be deleted, and a mention in Fallout 4 or some list of hoaxes would be perfectly fine. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion if anything, I'd say that the fact that Thesurvivor2299 turned out to be a fanmade hoax is a strong argument that the AFD got it right and a reminder of exactly why we have rules like WP:N and CRYSTAL. The supposition that being a fanmade hoax site somehow made it MORE notable eather than less is just bizarre. If anything, it's very much the opposite. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The article was a total mess at the time of its deletion. A circumstance in which it was recreated would require a complete rewrite, at a time when the sources had calmed down. The page should not be restored to the way it was prior to its deletion. CR4ZE (t) 00:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:In my tribe original cover 10000 maniacs.jpg

File:In my tribe original cover 10000 maniacs.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I was advised to have the image's deletion reviewed here. This image was deleted without one single vote of either keep or delete. There was one comment saying that only one image must be used, but that person didn't say either the original or the re-release edition. In contrast, the other discussion says that two different album covers are good enough for another album, Touch (Sarah McLachlan album). Should consensus be straightforward or inconsistent? I did advise administrators to not delete the image without consensus, but the advise was ignored. Oh yes, almost forgot: the album cover was also discussed in WT:non-free content/Archive 60#Choosing one of album and singles covers of a similar work. George Ho (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Maybe WP:FFD isn't the best forum for perceptive consensus building and relisting until happy agreement has been reached. Also, the instructions for closers are rather different from other deletion venues "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised". In this case no objections had been raised (but no one supported deleting this particular image either). Thincat (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• If there are multiple files and it is unclear which ones we should keep, it may be better to use WP:NFCR instead. Maybe it is better to simply list this case there. However, if an article fails WP:NFCC#3a, then something must be deleted per policy, although it is difficult to decide which image(s) if there only is consensus that something is to be deleted but no consensus about what that something is. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist we have longstanding precedents for multiple cover artwork when RS'es cover the difference, Virgin Killer being the most notable example that springs to mind. Regardless, per the PROD precedent, any 'unless anyone objects' deletion that has someone object after the deletion's closure is routinely restored and immediately eligible for a more detailed deletion discussion, which I think is the best way forward here. Jclemens (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• relist I think given there was no discussion deletion was acceptable. But now that someone has raised a reasonable objection it's time to have that discussion. Hobit (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Kevin L. McCrudden

Kevin L. McCrudden (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

You deleted the page started for Kevin L. McCrudden. Stating it was "promotional." How is anything "biographical" not "promotional?" There were several news sources and news clips given as "objective sources" and even a page from The United States Congress. What information do you need then in order to assign or move this worthy page forward? How or when do we know if you have responded? Where do we receive notice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.230.83 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The article was highly promotional with multiple superlatives and links to the same sales website. Stephen 21:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review . I would not necessarily restore an article like this even temporarily, but it will be easier to see the depth of the problems with the text available,; it's at Kevin L. McCrudden. With respect to notice, the username under which the article was contributed was User:Kevin McCrudden, so the notice was properly paced at the same time the deletion was requested, on that user's talk page, User talk:Kevin McCrudden. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse the speedy deletion. To me the the article very clearly is covered by the WP:CSD#G11 criterion. Although I can find parts of the article which do not seem promotional (e.g. the last paragraph) it needs a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic in tone. Thincat (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse per Thincat. I'll admit I didn't make it all the way to the last paragraph, but it met G11 before that no matter how it finished. Hobit (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. The discussion is that there are thousands of pages about people that haven't done what Mr. McCrudden has done. He was named specifically as the creator of National Motivation & Inspiration Day during the debate of H. Res 308 on 12/18/2001.

He is a published author with books and audiobooks on Amazon, iTunes and Barnes & Noble. All of which are neutral, non partisan sites.

His appearances on national and international TV are on unbiased sites. All of the links to all of these sites are on his web sites.

How can we have someone begin a page with these very legitimate links and pages?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

69.114.230.83 (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

In order to write an article about person you will need links to neutral sources which discuss the person in question in reasonable detail which allow us to establish the notability of the person, see WP:NOTABILITY and the sidebar in it for subject-specific guidelines. Further, your article must be based only on information in these sources and this information must be presented without superlative terms (see WP:PEACOCK). Staszek Lem (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess my concern is how does any page about someone NOT come across as "promotional?" I understand the superlatives, but we have provided pages from the United States Congress. Amazon, iTunes. Barnes & Noble. Fox News. ABC News. How are these NOT objective?

National Motivation & Inspiration Day was passed by The United States Congress on 12/18/2001 after the tragic events of 9-11-01. H. Res 308 is the resolution that was passed declaring January 2nd National Motivation & Inspiration Day. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hres308

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=kevin+mccrudden

http://ax.itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZSearch.woa/wa/search?term=Kevin%20McCrudden

https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/simple-goals/id590236532?mt=8&ign-mpt=uo%3D2

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3958991/

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1359149018001/

I hope these are seen as non partial sources. 69.114.91.34 (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse - Lacks reliable external, independent sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

? I'm so sorry. I am just not getting you guys. How is the Congressional Record, Amazon, iTunes, Apple and Fox News NOT "reliable external, independent sources?" We must be missing something?

69.114.230.83 (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something, namely the parts in my previous reply highlighted in boldface (since I did suspect you will miss them). Now, please explain which part of Kevins's biography is based on, e.g. Amazon and iTunes links? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize. So, "discuss the person" Kevin McCrudden. Is that what you're saying?

Born December 18, 1963 Kevin Laurence McCrudden, twin to Karen Lorraine McCrudden born 3 minutes apart. Graduated from St. John the Baptist High School in West Islip, NY in December 1981, Class of 1982 Graduated from State University of New York at Brockport in December 1985, Class of 1986 Stand out Soccer player and 4 year starter. All SUNYAC Conference and All New York State Selections Founder of National Motivation & Inspiration Day Italic textas passed by The United States Congress, H. Res. 308 on December 18, 2001 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hres308 AND: New York State Senate Resolution Number 3850 on January 29, 2002 President and CEO of Motivate America, Inc.Italic text www.MotivateAmerica.us Creator of The American Motivation AwardsItalic text, honoring "motivational, inspirational and patriotic leaders in America." www.AmericanMotivationAwards.com Past honorees include: Dr. Stephen Covey; Zig Ziglar; Jim Rohn; Connie Podesta; The Tuskegee Airmen; Randy Pausch; Tom Brady; Michael Phelps; Brett Favre Author of "Who Are You? Become the Very Best You that You Can Be"Italic text http://www.amazon.com/Who-Become-Very-Best-That/dp/1613392575/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1386788781&sr=8-6&keywords=Kevin+Mccrudden Author of "SUCCESS TRAINING" Italic texthttp://www.amazon.com/Success-Training-Secrets-Always-Dreamed/dp/B006YCMXJY/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1386788781&sr=8-10&keywords=Kevin+Mccrudden Author of "The Extraordinary Man ~ The Journey of Becoming Your Greater Self" Italic text http://www.amazon.com/The-Extraordinary-Man-Journey-Becoming/dp/B0087RWHHC/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1386788974&sr=8-9&keywords=Kevin+Mccrudden Author of The Commencement ~ Transform Your Life and Expect Your Greater Self" Italic text http://www.amazon.com/The-Commencement-Transform-Expect-Greater/dp/B0087X8WVQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1386788974&sr=8-3&keywords=Kevin+Mccrudden

Appearances on Fox News to discuss National Motivation & Inspiration Day 2008 http://video.foxnews.com/v/3958991/ 2010 http://video.foxnews.com/v/1359149018001/

Is this what you mean? We were so preoccupied defending why he deserves a page, we weren't giving you the specifics you needed. Is that what was happening? I thought we were providing information for someone else to write the article though?

I hope we're getting closer to what you needed. Is this enough to get the ball rolling? Do you need us to supply you with links to fill in blanks?

Thank you for working with us on this. 69.114.230.83 (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Your replies clearly demonstrate that you fail to understand the nature of our requirements and our objections despite a long discussion. You failed to answer direct questions addressed to you. Therefore regardless the merits of Kevin McCrudden,I see no point to talking to you further, sorry. According to your policy, Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, I would suggest you to abandon this issue. If he is as notable a person as you claim, then let somebody else to write the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse the speedy deletion; see my talk above. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for not understanding your cryptic note in bold that said, (In order to write an article about person you will need links to neutral sources which discuss the person in question in reasonable detail which allow us to establish the notability of the person, see WP:NOTABILITY and the sidebar in it for subject-specific guidelines. Further, your article must be based only on information in these sources and this information must be presented without superlative terms)

I'm sorry you feel it's a waste of time. This is our third attempt to have a page loaded for Mr. McCrudden. It has been over a decade since the creation of National Motivation & Inspiration Day, which was passed by Congress. I just don't know what more of an objective site you can find. It's just fact. No superlatives. His books and audiobooks are just fact. No superlatives there either. They are on sale on internationally recognized web sites. So, forgive us for not getting "your language "

Our original request was to ask if there is a way that someone can build this page. Otherwise, we would do it, if we knew how. We don't. It's like asking us to speak Greek. We don't.

Is there someone else we can have review this? A "Supervisor" of sorts?

We have tried to be polite, but it seems there is some condescension that we don't understand. We are reading the sentences and they do not make sense. 69.114.230.83 (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If you cannot handle the phrase "neutral sources which discuss the person in question in reasonable detail", then you probably are not in a position to do anything in wikipedia. A venue to start an article if you don't know how to do this is WP:AFC (I assume you know how to click a mouse on a blue text.). However if the phrase "see WP:NOTABILITY and the sidebar in it for subject-specific guidelines" is cryptic for you, then I am afraid it will be extremely difficult to help you. A "Supervisor" for this issue is wikipedia community, and it looks like the community does not in favor of your issue. We do have "supervisors of sorts", but they are only to handle acute issues harmful for wikipedia: we (including "supervisors") are all volunteers here, working in our free time to build encyclopedia. All typical, everyday, "small claims court", issues are handled by a consensus of wikipedians who have free time and are willing to spend it on the issue. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Staszek. Please understand that we appreciate your time, but there is still some room for miscommunication here.

You have clearly once again stated that your direction was "neutral sources which discuss the person" in question in reasonable detail." BUT you have still not answered how verbal record of Mr. McCrudden on the floor of The United States Congress, on National TV interviews, and Books and Audiobooks written and spoken by Mr. McCrudden DO NOT meet the criteria of "neutral sources?" Please. Explain how these are NOT "neutral sources?"

There are literally thousands of Wiki pages on people that have done nothing close to what Mr. McCrudden has done and yet, they have Wiki pages?

Truly. We are sorry that you seem frustrated, as are we. There is no question of his "NOTABILITY" it's just a matter of how you are willing to read it.

If we are NOT doing it properly, we have asked several times if there is someone that we can work with to make sure it is done properly. Please advise and please note that this is nothing personal at all, we do not know you and you do not know us. We are just trying to get something done that is long overdue. That's all.

Staszek. Thank you again for your time and patience.

69.114.230.83 (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for asking a specific, answerable question. This question means that you did not follow my repeated advice "see WP:NOTABILITY and the sidebar in it for subject-specific guidelines". Let me move your computer mouse for you. The page WP:NOTABILITY must be perused whenever you start an article on a no-so-well known subject whose notability may be contested. Therefore I advised you to start from it. Further, a rather prominent sidebar in it contains links to rules for specific subject categories; in our case "People" fits best, and since we have a problem, you must read it carefully. Its first section, "Basic criteria" contains an answer to your question. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)