This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HangingCurve (talk | contribs) at 00:53, 12 April 2008 (→Mark Foley scandal: strong overturn). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:53, 12 April 2008 by HangingCurve (talk | contribs) (→Mark Foley scandal: strong overturn)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| < April 11 | Deletion review archives: 2008 April | April 13 > |
|---|
12 April 2008
Mark Foley scandal
- Mark Foley scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
As there seem to be threats of desysopping should I overturn this without a DRV then I guess I best file one (even though the article hasn't even been deleted). This was redirected because of BLP concerns, but I honestly fail to see them. I believe the main reason for the redirect was because of the word "scandal" in the title - that isn't a valid reason. All the information was well sourced and there was no reason whatsoever to delete the contents of the article, especially without discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep deleted under its current title, support a neutrally worded title. Seriously, so many problems with the content and you can't see one? Sceptre 00:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's seriously not an excuse to delete the whole article. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- WP:BLP ring a bell? Do no harm, and this wasn't. Sceptre 00:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's not the point I'm making. Foley might mention it himself. The point is, the article was negative, not the subject. Sceptre 00:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sceptre, please slow down, calm down, and provide coherent arguments. Comments like "WP:BLP ring a bell?" and "Ding ding ding ding" (at AN) are not helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- WP:BLP ring a bell? Do no harm, and this wasn't. Sceptre 00:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's seriously not an excuse to delete the whole article. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn redirect. There were BLP problems, but we don't delete in such cases. We remove negative unsourced material. As noted by Dragons flight, this article had been worked on a great deal by many people, had over 100 references, and generally didn't deserve to be completely wiped. Having the word "scandal" in the title is not a problem, and at risk of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS I cite every other article we have with that word in the title. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn per DHMO and, well, most everyone at Misplaced Pages:AN#Sigh.... We might debate theoretically whether an article's being situated at a BLP-violative title but being otherwise unproblematic is understood by the community providing a sufficient basis for BLP summary deletion, but that broader theoretical debate need not to happen here, where it seems eminently clear that, whatever may have been the good faith of Cobalt and Sceptre, the argument they advance (viz., that the title itself egregiously contravenes BLP) does not command the support of the community. On the upside, summary BLP deletions (or protected redirections, I suppose) of this sort, citing the Bdj RfAr and suggesting that DRV is the proper venue to seek to overturn those deletions, are increasingly seen as inappropriate except in extreme cases, and it may be that the community will soon, as I advocated it do in the wake of the Bdj RfAr, make explicit in BLP that certain principles of that RfAr should not be understood as mandated by or consistent with policy, in order that we address a bit of well-intentioned ArbCom overreach. Joe 00:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Revert redirection Out of process deletion opposed by half a dozen people at AN. Restore and take to AFD if you must. This was a notable event and when its good enough to get an article, we prune or move to the Right thing, we don't chop off the entire limb. MBisanz 00:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Undelete/overturn/whatever/bring it back I am willing to work on the POV issues and clean it up to a more acceptable standard if need be. -- Naerii 00:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- As am I. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - possibly overturn redirect, and look at integrating with the material at United States House of Representatives Page#Scandals, and creating an umbrella article covering the scandals, without having a title that focuses on Mark Foley. Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's the best idea (that said, I speak as a teenage Australian who had never heard of Foley before now)...it seems there would be too many, and another behemoth article would be created (kinda like this one was) where there isn't enough control over possibly negative content. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn/delete redirect. Concerned users may use the article talk page to find a better article name and may deal with BLP problems in the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - overturn redirect; Carcharoth's suggestion is a good one. --John (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral title and model article is available at 1983 congressional page sex scandal. Good length, well sourced, good historical distance. Let's aim to do the same at 2006 congressional page sex scandal. This would have been obvious if people had taken the time to STOP AND THINK. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strong overturn The argument that this is an irredeemable BLP violation doesn't withstand serious analysis. As someone who edited this article several times, the article was very well sourced. Agree with Ryan ... the claim that an article with the title "scandal" in it is inappropriate isn't even remotely convincing. Blueboy96 00:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
"American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonography"
- "American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonography" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
UNDELETE_REASON I wish to object to the deletion of the subject "American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonography." I do not understand why an article describing a non-profit credentialing agency, which is the largest on Earth for Diagnostic Sonographers is considered an advertisement. When I first posted it, it was called a "stub", now that it was expanded, you call it an advertisement!
How do I call for a review of this deletion?
Terry J. DuBose, M.S, RDMS, FSDMS, FAIUM