Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DGG (talk | contribs) at 06:56, 10 December 2007 (→Angela Beesley). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

9 December 2007

Stoner music

Stoner music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Last AfD resulted in delete but strangely an admin thought a redirect was more apt. Redirect to stoner rock is wrong. Stoner rock is a well defined genre whereas stoner music is just a term (not a genre) for music (whatever genre e.g. reggae, hip hop) that is strongly associated with cannabis use. In other words, it's music to listen while getting high. See Rolling Stone articles and . The term is wildly used on the internet, mainly in forums and other non-notable media. Here are some examples of more reliable media that have used the term: , , , , , , and less notable but nevertheless sources , . Some of them refer to stoner rock, most do not. The article must not redirect to stoner rock Kameejl 18:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Most recent AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stoner music (2nd nomination). Mackensen (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

*Speedy close as malformed nomination - nominator obviously missed AfD2. Nominator can format a new DRV if they wish to appeal AfD2. BlueValour (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• The top link is wrong, but he's clearly discussing AfD 2, since the original was a keep. No need to speedy close, at least not on those grounds. Mackensen (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  I've fixed the top link. Splash - tk 00:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. A redirect was a noble idea but flawed by the sounds of the debate and the nomination statement here. Original research charges do not seem to have been rebutted in the debate, a cursory google search suggests that there are no sources that would rebut that charge, the target of the redirect is evidently unsatisfactory as set out here and the debate makes clear that the article is not wanted standalone. (NB. That all said, the redirect seems fairly harmless to me). Splash - tk 00:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Stoner music is a widely used term but ill-defined. The stoner rock article is also flawed since most of the content is unsourced and redolent of OR. The stoner music article couldn't survive but there is scope for a sourced page to be written. Meanwhile this is a Mostly Harmless redirect. BlueValour (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Angela Beesley

To avert a discussion on WP:AN from turning ugly, I'm listing this here. After closing this AFD as "no consensus", User:Mercury decided that "Since there was no consensus to do anything WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards grants me discretion to consider the subjects request. I have done so and deleted the article. We are doing the right thing here." User:Spartaz wonders "Please explain exactly how/why the article contravenes BLP. Specifically what unsourced questionable content was there?" Back-and-forth arguing on the admin board ensued (permalink).

Earlier AFD discussions resulted in keep, keep, no consensus, snowball, speedy keep for WP:POINT, and no consensus. Let me be clear on the point that I have no opinion either way on this myself, but just wish to avoid further drama. Abstain. >Radiant< 19:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. No consensus in AfD, and per WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards subject's request and admin's discretion override. Crum375 (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards was written for exactly this kind of case. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain myself but surprisingly leaning towards endorse As far as I can see the substantial discussion has already ended at ANI and I fear that having a DRV will only reignite the drama. I was initially very unhappy with the explanation for the delete and felt that some users might perceive Mercury as lacking independance in this case but he strongly disputes this. I have since discussed this with Mercury off-wiki and, mostly, my concerns have been assuaged. As such, I have let this drop. BLP as it is currently drafted seems to allow greater scope for the deletion of non-notable bios than previously and the deletion is therefore grounded in policy as long as the AFD stands as no consensus. Spartaz 20:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. People complained about the article being kept for the past 2 years. Fewer people complain about the article being deleted now. This is surely the correct decision, and the redirection to Wikia an entirely sensible one. Nick (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - (ec) After initial concerns that I brought up at the AN thread, I believe that a deletion may have been in order, as per Crum375. — Rudget _speak.work 20:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn AFD was originally closed as no consensus; you don't get to come back and change your mind later. A "do-over" should have required a re-list. Furthermore, the deletion per WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards requires that the person's "notability is ambiguous" and yet a near super-majority of editors insisted the person met WP:N. Notability is rather obvious as the subject has articles transwiki'd in seven other languages (e.g. ). But if I have to learn Bahasa Indonesian to read about this person, gotta do what I gotta do. -- Kendrick7 20:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody did a "do over". A quick look at the comments indicates ambiguity on the AFD. What other projects do, should not affect our project. Mercury 20:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's simply out of process to come back and change your mind 10 hours later. That's a dangerous precedent which would allow all sorts of pressure and backroom dealing to be brought against any closing admin in order to get them to change their minds, wouldn't you agree? What is done should be done. And while there may not have been consensus to delete, there was a practical consensus that notability was strongly met. -- Kendrick7 20:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You post insinuates that I had changed my mind off site. I have not changed my mind, the AFD close is still no consensus. You know assume good faith is policy here. I have applied the BLP policy properly here. If there is any substance to your accusations, please post them. As far as the rest of your post, it indicates you are not familiar with the AFD or the WP:BLP policy. You should know about what you are commenting on. Regards, Mercury 20:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that is the case here; I'm happy to believe you have misapplied the "marginal notability" guideline of your own free will. This guideline was intended for people like Brian Peppers, not for corporate board members. I'm simply saying the out of process deletion here would be a dangerous precedent to set. -- Kendrick7 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The burdon of proof is on you then. Mercury 21:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That you effectively closed the AFD twice? Er, OK. I'll inquire at WP:BLP as to whether the "marginal notability" guideline was developed with corporate board members in mind, but I think a lot of editors do know the history here. -- Kendrick7 21:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(od)No I closed the AFD once. Then I slept on it, and applied the policy properly. Is there a deadline that I don't know about? It was closed as no consensus, and still no consensus. Mercury 21:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You did not apply the policy properly. Editors at the AFD clearly endorsed the notability of the subject. -- Kendrick7 21:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

::So you go to the blp talk page and ask support? Mercury 21:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I just say above I was going to inquire there? If nothing else, this policy should be clarified going forward. "Marginality" shouldn't just become another cloak of ambiguity administrators can wrap their decisions in. -- Kendrick7 21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Correct application of WP:BLP policy to delete biographies of marginal notability if the subject requests. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - if the BLP has explicitly said that she doesn't want a biography on Misplaced Pages (due to real life issues or other), we should respect her wishes. I know that Angela is not the suing type, but if she did decide to take that route, this could have legal implications for the WKM foundation. Miranda 21:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion there's no consensus that we need this article - in such cases taking the subject's wishes into account is both a reasonable and humane application of WP:BLP. She's only notable for Wikia - and we have a redirect to that.--Doc 21:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Common sense suggests that the biographical information now at Wikia is adequate and an independent biography page is not needed. Send the wikilawyers away and let's end this. --JWSchmidt (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion When someone is borderline notable and they don't want an article then it should be deleted as per WP:BLP. If at some future date Angela becomes a lot more notable then this argument wouldn't hold. RMHED (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• I am not voting but simply stating that it would be wise to let everyone know that this is happening. Kind of looks like a behind the scenes clandestine affair. Just food for thought. 70.242.179.148 (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC) — 70.242.179.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC)..
• Endorse deletion - A valid close based on the administrator's discretionary zone. No issues here. Sean William @ 21:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion But can of course be recreated at any time as notability grows. As she still shows up in the news over time, she will eventually be completely notable and not eligible for borderline removal eventually. Lawrence Cohen 21:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Change to overturn in hindsight. I voted to delete, after changing from speaking with Durova. In hindsight I think it was a mistake. Unless Beesley stops doing notable things, what is the point here? We just will be forced to remake the article in 6-12-18 months, and waste time. Why do I say that? Has Beesley stopped speaking about Wikia, a company she co-founded? Or Misplaced Pages? Is she still talking to news media? Her name and profile will still rise in such ways, unless she becomes a private person. We have x number of sources today, we'll have y more in 6-12-18 months unless she announces she's done with any public corporate roles. Lawrence Cohen 04:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• 'overturn as not requested by subject' change to do not restore (I will not say "endorse", this was mishandled) unless the BLP policy is clarified in a way that means she is not "marginally notable". ; no prejudice towards another AFD if it is requested. —Random832 21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  Did you read the AFD? I'll assume you did and missed this gem. Yes she did. Mercury 21:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  I hadn't seen that. Since she was apparently not in any contact with Durova, though, Durova's behavior needs to be examined separate from this.—Random832 21:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be fair, Durova may not respond here. Any questions about her might should be brought to her talk page. Mercury 22:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This may also be some clarification. But ask on the talk page. Mercury 22:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct, that this forum is not for discussion on the nominator. As an aside, I discounted references to off wiki communication. Mercury 21:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. No more drama. Let it flop. 68.193.198.41 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I thought this was deleted ages ago. --Tony Sidaway 22:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Just to be clear here. Are Ms Beesley and Mr Jimbo Wales still romantically involved? TIA --Tom 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What? Mercury 22:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Are Beesley and Wales still girlfriend, boyfriend, or have they broken up? TIA--Tom 22:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What the hell, they were never romaticlly involved. Secret 22:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If thats the case I apologize. I swear to heck that I remember that being part of her bio. Please tell me I am not repeating some vandalism to her article. If thats the case, I will strike this. TIA --Tom 22:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It was somebody else in WMF who was mentioned, not Jimbo. You should probably strike this section, it's wrong and prejudicial -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion Redirect to Wikia works fine. ~ priyanath talk 22:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Proper close, per WP:BLP policy for barely notable individuals who express a clear preference, particularly where Misplaced Pages appears to be the only biographical source available. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - this is ridiculous. Angela was a board member at Wikimedia foundation, you know, the organization that maintains the largest reference work in the world, and she founded a multi-million company. There are no privacy concerns - she's a public person, appears in media and whatnot. If Angela has any specific concerns with this article, I'm sure that can be handled without deleting it. Zocky | picture popups 23:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Crum375. --A. B. 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Closing admin invoked but did not explain discretion used in the close except possibly that she asked for it. If a (semi-notable) subjects request for deletion by itself is all that's needed I think that's new ground and needs a little more discussion. RxS (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Whatever happens, can we please have some kind of notice in the protection log linking to either this deletion review or the specific AFD? The deleting admin's summary of "BLP" is not enough in a case with such a long history. User:Krator (t c) 23:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. This is ridiculous of course she is notable, she even promotes her own achievements complete with pictures on the internet , even going so far as to call herself Wiki-Angela. The was no consensus to delete this page what so ever. Misplaced Pages is not some sort of trade directory one opts to be in or out of, it is supposed to be a comprehensive encyclopedia. Giano (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - maybe this was mentioned at the AfD, but I'm looking at the other two people mentioned in the Wikia article: Jimmy Wales and Gil Penchina. I know that arguments based on other articles are weak, but if Gil Penchina can't be expanded beyond a stub due to a lack of independent biographical information, then it probably needs to go as well. For what it is worth, I think some people (known mainly for their work) aren't generally covered in biographical terms in independent sources, but we should still have something about them in the relevant articles. In this case, some of the material previously at Angela Beesley should be incorporated into a history section of Wikia, covering the founding of the company. Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Crum375 and others. SlimVirgin 00:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - a good use of BLP for a barely notable biographical article. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Taking the subject's wishes into account in cases where the notability is borderline and there's no clear consensus seems well within admin discretion, and a good use of BLP. ElinorD (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Notable enough; and won't the resulting shitstorm harm her reputation more than the article ever did? Zagalejo^^^ 01:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• overturn I'd rather not have this DRV now but if we're going to have it now overturn. I continue to maintain my position that courtesy deletion for people who are willing public figures is uncalled for and almost ridiculous. I understand cases like Brian Peppers where the person in question has become notable in a completely unwilling fashion, but people who are notable precisely because they have injected themselves into public sphere simply do not have the same rights. Furthermore, in such cases we as a whole owe our readers to have articles about them. I find this particular disturbing in a case where the subject of the article has a website devoted to promoting herself. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. As umpteen people have said already, this seems like a correct application of WP:BLP#BLP deletion standards. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I did not "vote" in the original AfD, although I did comment. But DRV is about the process of deletion, not the deletion itself. There is a huge difference between "no consensus, so it stays" and "no consensus, but it is a BLP and subject request for deletion, so I guess I'll delete". These are two very different closes. The fact that the closing admin made one type of close and then ten hours later actually changed the type of closing decision is a process issue. We cannot permit AfD closers to go around changing their minds or modifying their decisions. That is what DRV is for - reviewing those decisions. Risker (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh but I did not change my mind. It was a decision I needed to sleep on. Was there a deadline I was not aware of? Do we need to be making these decisions hastily? Whats going on?

The close was first no consensus, and is still no consensus. I only applied the BLP ten hours later. Mercury 02:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mercury, if you needed to sleep on it, then you should not have closed the discussion. It is really that simple. You made two separate and different "close" decisions, one resulting in deletion and the other one not resulting in deletion. You don't get to change your mind after your nap. That is abuse of process. If you are not sure of what decision is best, then your responsibility is NOT to make a decision, to leave it to any one of the other admins who close contentious AfDs. Risker (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it has always been a no consensus close. Mercury 02:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No consensus (therefore delete) and No consensus (therefore keep) are two different results. The different results came 10 hours apart. Closers should only get one kick at the can in determining AfD results. Risker (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion was a result of a BLP interpretation. Not the result of the AFD. Mercury 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone besides yourself, that was uninvolved, should have done it. You do have a stake in this, as you closed the AfD, which was also started by Durova, who nominated you for adminship. You were also one of the single most vocal defenders of her after she harassed User:!!. Based on your possible conflict of interest and personal stake, perhaps you should self-reverse as an involved party. Lawrence Cohen 03:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how relate my RFA or !!'s block to the AFD or DRV. They are unrelated. I have no personal stake. User:Mercury/OpenLetter. Mercury 03:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Cripes, why bother doing AfD at all if everything is subject to fiat? Cleduc (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn BLP paranoia. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion A generous opt-out policy is the right thing in my view. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think this falls into the area where we should consider opting out. Considering there really isn't anything negative about the article, and it's very unlikely the attention it would bring her would be negative, reenforces that. The entire concept of considering opting out from the subject has always been poorly defined. It is not something to use for controversial deletions. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  Unless her public work stops in the next year or more, her notability will only grow. What then? Lawrence Cohen 04:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, for two reasons. First, closing as a no consensus delete is ridiculous, particularly given that the decision to delete from the closure was made over 10 hours after the closure. If it's no consensus, it defaults to keep. If you're going to delete it, close it as such and make a rational explanation, not "no consensus". Second, many of those endorsing the closure are arguing for a change in policy. If policy is to be changed, we need to decide as a community to do so. This is not a radical change in policy, but is significant enough that it shouldn't be brought about by one administrator. Honestly, I have no problem with the article being deleted, and would vote to delete it in an AFD, but I can't in good conscience support the way this was brought about. Ral315 (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn let's not play wikipolitics with the encyclopedia. The BLP reasoning seems invalid given this claim - . Catchpole (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is precisely the spirit of WP:BLP. Shell 06:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

DRV early closure

• Comment The DRV was closed twice early by the same person, and two seperate editors have now undone that as too soon/premature. Lawrence Cohen 04:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Discussion on DRV early closure is at User_talk:Jc37#DRV_2 Lawrence Cohen 05:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Here's the text of the closure: . - jc37 05:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• overturn Our policy on permitting users to decide whether or not they are to have an article is what needs overturning. It amounts to saying that AB can have what article she pleases, because if not she will ask it be deleted. This is the antithesis of NPOV. As i see it, NPOV requires we may our decisions in total ignorance of the wishes of the subject of the article--no responsible organization can do otherwise and have any claim to reliability. The absurdity of this deletion indicates how low we have fallen--especially as regards WP people. they have the right to be judged as anyone else., they do not have the right to any greater consideration. NPOV is absolute and without it we lose credibility. When we fail to apply it to ourselves, we particularly degenerate into a joke--and WR and its kind can have a chance to say that we includes the failings of everyone except our friends. this is perhaps the strongest example yet. This is a notable web site, like it or not, and the major figures running it are notable. DGG (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Peppa (closed)