Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 4: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:12, 5 March 2009 editFritzpoll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,706 edits →YouTube cat abuse incident: a dose of good faith goes a long way← Previous edit Revision as of 23:15, 5 March 2009 edit undoTagishsimon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers81,201 edits You do a gross disservice to yourself and the rest of us by seeking to smear those who disagree with you; such tactics disgust me.Next edit →
Line 132: Line 132:
::* The links have, as far as I'm aware, pointed to the same things all the way through this process, from the time of article creation to now. I personally think people just forget the "#", but I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong :) ] (]) 23:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC) ::* The links have, as far as I'm aware, pointed to the same things all the way through this process, from the time of article creation to now. I personally think people just forget the "#", but I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong :) ] (]) 23:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
'''Comment''': ], after instructing me to "Get over it" above, proceeded to ] to support their view. That aside, there was an interesting response from ] regarding primary and secondary sources. I would suggest that the treating the issue (even if in a blog) satisfies even this higher standard, as well as that of the article formerly known as NOTNEWS (which also suggests setting precedent as another way to gain notability/notoriety, which may well happen here too). ] (]) 23:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC) '''Comment''': ], after instructing me to "Get over it" above, proceeded to ] to support their view. That aside, there was an interesting response from ] regarding primary and secondary sources. I would suggest that the treating the issue (even if in a blog) satisfies even this higher standard, as well as that of the article formerly known as NOTNEWS (which also suggests setting precedent as another way to gain notability/notoriety, which may well happen here too). ] (]) 23:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:I have not tried to change policy, and I resent your careless attitude in making such an accusation. I asked at ] that mention should be made in WP:N of ]. Misplaced Pages tries to deal in verifiable fact. You have completely failed in this, wikiscrubber, and it is stupid and reprehensible of you to try to mount such an accusation given the evidence is but a click away. You do a gross disservice to yourself and the rest of us by seeking to smear those who disagree with you; such tactics disgust me. --] ] 23:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

Revision as of 23:15, 5 March 2009

< 2009 March 3 Deletion review archives: 2009 March 2009 March 5 >

4 March 2009

File:Canihavearideoctave.ogg

File:Canihavearideoctave.ogg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Missing FUR that can be included within a minute. File has been requested for undeletion more than three days ago by using the simple undelete image tag. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 22:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

YouTube cat abuse incident

YouTube cat abuse incident (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Inappropriate use of WP:NOTNEWS. This incident (if not the perpetrators) is without a shadow of a doubt notable, receiving extensive dedicated international print and television press coverage e.g. here, here, here and here, various petitions, significant grassroots action and remarkable backlash. Animal abuse happens all the time yes, but it's not every day it's filmed, published, (successfully) investigated by vigilantes and then proceeds to trial (which is ongoing).

In any case this deletion is clearly not supported by policy, which perhaps needs clarifying even if its intent seems perfectly clear (no routine coverage with examples given, notability doesn't transfer to individuals and breaking news treated like everything else). Editors need to remember that AfD debates are like mini-trials, for careful interpretation of existing policy, not sharing of opinions.

Normally I'm on the other side of the fence but this decision is very clearly wrong. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion. Good-faith decision by person closing debate recognizing that none of the !Keep discussion adequately refuted the WP:NOT#NEWS reasoning. WikiScrubber's argument doesn't either. THF (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • From AfD: "It has been argued that WP:NOTNEWS provides a rationale to delete this article. That policy states that "outine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article"; this is clearly not such a topic. It stresses that articles on individuals notable for one event are to be avoided; that is precisely what this article does, in lieu of an article on the perpetrator(s)...Let's be very clear on this point: Notability is not subjective. The Irish Times and The Telegraph are prominent broadsheet newspapers, and without doubt reliable sources independent of this topic. The coverage of this event in the two articles is not trivial, and unambiguously fulfills the significance criterion. In short, this topic clearly meets the encyclopaedia's threshold for inclusion, the general notability guideline. This discussion has thus far provided exceptionally poor rationales as to why this point ought to be ignored." WikiScrubber (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You're cherrypicking. The same policy also talks about historic notability, something this five & dime incident lacks. Get over it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Honest question: How can you tell? How can you tell whether an incident today lacks historical notability? I mean, Internet vigilantism is a pretty new phenomenon, so how can we tell which early instances of it are formative of cultural views, and which ones aren't? This is not a trick quesiton; I have not got an answer in mind. -GTBacchus 01:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Once it's formative of cultural views, we'll treat it as such. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
That's non-responsive, you know. I'm asking how will we tell when it's formative of cultural views. I'm asking that this subjective criterion be made somehow objective, and it's a reasonable question. -GTBacchus 05:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Oooh, different question then. In the general case? I don't know, I'm bad at writing policy. In the specific case? Nobody here is arguing that there's any historical impact. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
No, that's not a different question. "How can you tell whether something is historically significant?" is the question I asked both times. As for "Nobody here is arguing that there's any historical impact," that's simply false. Several people are arguing precisely that the event has historical significance. I don't agree that the significance is established, but I won't pretend that those arguing significance don't exist. There are two sides to this question, either of which a reasonable person may hold. -GTBacchus 20:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The obvious answer would be, 'When reliable sources say so', otherwise it's a game of prediction. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah... I'm thinking about current events, some of which are significant without question, and some of which are utterly trivial. The ones that are significant beyond question, I don't think we look for a source saying "Event X is historically significant". We rely on our judgment in many of these cases. I'm trying to put my finger on what criteria we're applying when we do that. If anyone can help figure this out, I'd be grateful. -GTBacchus 20:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Without a time machine it is impossible to determine 'historical notability' so it seems both a weak basis for an argument and a poor metric for policy. I claim that it is historically significant, you claim that it's not, so then it's just a case of who has the loudest voice(s). WikiScrubber (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not ready to give up on "historical notability" and say that it's impossible to measure. We found a reasonably good metric for "notability" when we hammered that concept into shape. Why don't we think about what criteria would have to be met to make something historically notable? We might even be able to come up with criteria that don't involve time machines! -GTBacchus 20:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I see that you have raised this issue on the WP:N talk page with a view to having policy updated to support your view, and yet you're telling me to "get over it". I don't even like cats but I do have a problem with (admittedly poor) policies being misused/misinterpreted. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Has anyone noticed a problem? I haven't read the article shouldnt this article be temporarily restored while undergoing DRV (as should all articles undergoing DRV)? How else can I make an assessment? It seems there were legitmate arguments from both sides. Valoem 21:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Closing admins should evaluate deletion debates in light of our policies, which have a much broader participation than the !votes of any AFD. In this case, the policy rationales cited in the debate leaned heavily in favor of deletion, and the closing admin made a good call. Cool Hand Luke 21:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per THF and per closing admin: AfD is not a ballot, and the losing side lost because they did not refute WP:NOT#NEWS which deals with historical notability. On the assumption that WikiScrubber is contacting everyone involved in the AfD debate, s/he can hardly expect a much different result than a whole bunch of keeps & deletes as last time. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per THF and CHL. GlassCobra 21:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure and deletion - I see nothing wrong with the sysop's closure or the deletion itself. The WP:NOTNEWS argument is quite valid and the potential BLP issues were made clearly and repeatedly in the discussion by a majority of editors, which in my opinion established consensus beyond doubt. §FreeRangeFrog 21:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • If the event is significant, it's in the context of Internet vigilantism. Being significant in that regard is the only way to beat WP:NOTNEWS. Our Internet vigilantism article currently doesn't mention this incident, except as a redlink in the "See also" section. I would suggest that the sources are more than adequate to support a section in the 'Net vigilantism article. BLP issues mean that we have to be careful, not that we delete all content.

    Later, when the histories of the Internet are written, we can see which events were milestones in the development of Internet culture, and which ones were only of ephemeral interest. If this event lands int he former category, we can split it off then. For now, I think it should be covered in the more general article. Endorse deletion, recommend merge/redirect to Internet vigilantism. -GTBacchus 21:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  • That's a contradiction. You can't merge and redirect something that's deleted, so you're actually saying overturn deletion. Ty 01:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Um... I guess. The deleted versions of the page don't need to be restored. The content can be added to Internet vigilantism on those article's terms. Creating a new redirect at this location is easy. I don't care what you call it; it's what I think we ought to do. I'm sure whoever closes this discussion will read all the words, and understand. -GTBacchus 01:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, once it's merged, the redirect would be pretty useless, as it's an unlikely search term. I suppose what I'm really suggesting is that people forget about this as a separate article, and write about it in Internet vigilantism, where it can be put into perspective. -GTBacchus 01:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Good question. The reason I choose Internet vigilantism over those other topics is because that's what the sources deemed to be notable about it. The Russian newspaper wasn't reporting that some kid in the US beat up a cat. They were reporting that anonymous Internet users worked together to identify and report the perpetrator. It's not a notable example of animal abuse. It is a notable example of Internet vigilantism. -GTBacchus 20:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
What I see in your argument is failure to appreciate that you're trying to pitch a conclusion drawn from a set of guidelines - Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline, against a policy set out at WP:NOT#NEWS. Unless or until you can mount a historic notability argument to refute WP:NOT#NEWS you are sunk. The fact that this was an interesting enough man-bites-dog story to be picked up widely as padding to sell advertising does not make it historically notable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Just observing, the way his argument is stated, he addresses the policy WP:NOTNEWS by claiming that it doesn't apply. To be fair, a policy that doesn't apply fails to outweigh anything. Thus, the argument is really over whether NOTNEWS applies to this incident or not. To claim that it doesn't apply, it is necessary - as you say - to argue historical notability. However, we can't yet view the evolution of the Internet and its relationship to our culture in an historical light. Someone in the future will do that. Since it's not clear at this time that this event is an historically significant one, we can't just assume that it is. That's how I'm seeing it, anyway. -GTBacchus 22:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
OTOH you can't assume that it isn't either, which is what makes this a problematic/unenforceable policy. Without a time machine you have no way of knowing the historical significance, though this article (which touches on many issues outside of the vigilante aspect, such as privacy, animal abuse and justice) certainly seems to be. WikiScrubber (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a poor argument. Events are not assumed to be historically significant until shown to be otherwise. That would be insane. If we don't have an article now, and we add one after sources appear to demonstrate historical notability, that's just fine. We don't keep things around because they might turn out to be notable. -GTBacchus 20:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • overturn For the following reasons: a) There is no consensus for deletion. If anything the consensus is in the other direction. b) The NOTNEWS issue was addressed by people in the discussion such as Skomorokh. c) This was not a single news event anyways but part of a continuing and still ongoing series of events d) the sources included comments from academics e) given the massive coverage this has recieved and is still receiving the BLP argument doesn't hold any water. BLP is about not doing harm. Obviously we need to be careful about that. But BLP isn't about deleting well-sourced, internationally content that has a negative element. Moreover, the continuing international coverage means that if anything a neutrally written, factually accurate Wikpedia article will if anything do the exact opposite of harm by providing a sane account of everything that has happened and continues to happen. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse per all above. Stifle (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I endorse the deletion without prejudice towards incorporating some elements of the article into Internet vigilantism per the rational arguments made by GTBacchus. Why we have administrators and not vote counters. Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • As previously uninvolved party, overturn to no consensus. I would've !voted "delete" on this, but I think it would be stretching things much too far to say there was a consensus to delete. I think the closer should not have disregarded such a large number of reasoned "keeps"; the admin tools are supposed to be a mop, not a gavel.—S Marshall /Cont 22:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - It was reported in the news mostly as a "weird but true" story. This is where i'm critical of wikipedia - people don't seem to understand the difference between an encyclopedia article (wikipedia) and a news article (wikinews). Add it to wikinews. --Phil1988 (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. This is very important; not everything that is news-worthy (and reported by news sources) is necessarily encyclopedia-worthy. A very, very important distinction, that many people here seem to ignore. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion This is exactly the sort of thing BLP is about. Even the title is extremely in bad taste. MBisanz 00:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • As pointed out above, the BLP argument doesn't hold water as the policy does not apply to an article about an incident which doesn't even mention individual(s). WikiScrubber (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. I voted reluctant keep last time, but I think the closure was proper. Firestorm 00:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn deletion It wasn't just the fact that it made international news, but it showed a moment in history, when a large number of people on a very popular and influential internet site, came together to do some good. Has that ever happened before, for a case like this? Please read the cache of the article, before voting one way or the other. Dream Focus 00:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, people on websites such as 4chan have tipped off the authorities in previous incidents - generally shooting threats - so there was not even any novelty in this pathetic story. It's an almost daily occurrence. Here's today's. Please don't write an article about it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Most of what comes from 4chan is noise, as you say, but unlike the incident we're discussing (which has been covered internationally in many languages), this one about wikipedia vandalism is going to get the level of coverage it deserves: none. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn per JoshuaZ. It's notable through the coverage it has received (which "today's" in the previous post has not received, thus proving the point). No objection to merge with Internet vigilantism and redirect, per GTBacchus above. Ty 01:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion The closing of this AfD discussion was appropriately handled. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn It is false that "closing admins should evaluate deletion debates in light of our policies, which have a much broader participation than the !votes of any AFD." Admins do not get to judge policy. all they get to do is to use their knowledge of policy to discard arguments totally not based on it. The people at the discussion decide what the policy is, and t he admin just announces the results. He';s a moderator, with the moderator's power to disregard anything that's altogether irrelevant. If closers want to argue policy,they should join the discussion. If they can ignore the results of the afd, why bother to have them at all. Let whatever admin wants to delete an article delete it, on the basis of what he thinks the community will let him get away with. The purpose of having afd discussions is to get a manageable way of representing those interested in the community. For example, I might say that since it is my opinion that wrestling is not a notable profession, all people whose notability is derived from it should be removed. Myself, I do not think wp should have this article, but I think the majority is against me & I accept that. I may wish the majority had been different, but it was the majority. I don't get myself to write the rules, i don;t even get to interpret them, I just get to administer them the way the consensus wants me to. DGG (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per the arguments of those above. Closure was sound. Adam Zel (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn The AfD was closed improperly. The closing administrator made his own evaluation of the article, then closed the AfD according to his own personal conclusions - cherry picking the arguments he agreed with and ignoring the ones he didn't. If you actually read the debate, considering the both the number of votes and strength of the arguments, it is clear that there was no concensus to delete.
Furthermore, procedural mistakes aside, the article should really be kept. The editors advocating deletion based their argument on WP:NOT#NEWS. People seem to have some confusion about what this actually means, trying to use it where it doesn't apply, so I will quote the relevant section in it's entirety:
News reports. Misplaced Pages considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Misplaced Pages may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
Now let's take a look at our article, .
Is it Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism: No
Is the article about an individual?: No
Is the debate about content within an article (rather than the article itself)?: No
Therefore NOT:NEWS does not apply. The topic seen has extremely wide circulation, having recieved significant secondary source coverage in both national and international reliable sources including Russia Today, The Daily Telegraph, The Sun, The Irish Times, KWSO channel 7 (local news), the Harvard Law blog . Therefore the article should be kept. It's that simple. AfD hero (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any evidence it has historical notability: No. Significant secondary source coverage does not equal historical notability. Until you understand this, all your thrashing around picking your own cherries is to no avail whatsoever. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
"Historical notabilty" is a controvertial, vague, and subjective concept. This is why we have established real objective standards at WP:N, which this article clearly passes. AfD hero (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOT#NEWS is a policy. WP:N is guideline. We see things differently: I see WP:N as poorly written and without sufficient consideration for WP:NOT#NEWS, not least that it appears to lend a crutch to your argument. But while WP:NOT#NEWS continues as a policy, I have no compunction in asserting it and suggest that you need to deal with it, rather than wishing it was not in existence, for it is irrational to argue from a false premise. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Tagishsimon, it's true that WP:NOT#NEWS is policy, as you've said. To meet the criteria there, historical notability is required. My question: How is historical notability determined? Have you got a concrete test, or is it just down to individual editors' judgment? -GTBacchus 05:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
You are confusing WP:NOTNEWS (essay) with WP:NOT#NEWS (policy). The policy only deals with "historical significance" as explained specifically in the paragraph I quoted above, which this article passes. AfD hero (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't tell me what I'm confusing. I've never read that essay, and have no intention of reading it. I know that I'm talking about our policy. You claim that your argument shows that this topic meets the historical significance criterion, but I disagree. "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism," does not purport to be an exhaustive list of items that are not historically notable. Plenty of journalism lies outside of "announcements, sports and tabloid journalism" without attaining historical significance. Historical significance is a positive criterion that has to be met, and I'm asking whether anyone has got an objective way of testing for that. -GTBacchus 20:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Have you considered the possibility that there is no such test? The only test I can think of is non-trivial, dedicated treatment of the subject in multiple reliable sources, which is what we have today (and which this incident clearly satisfies). International coverage should erase all doubt (as opposed to multiple local sources, regardless of how reliable). Sports results get repetitive coverage in reliable sources but they are rarely notable... a bomb blast on the other hand is by very definition an instantaneous event and if it's significant enough for multiple reliable sources to write about it and someone cares enough to write an encyclopedic article on the subject then there is little harm in letting them. WikiScrubber (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Have I considered the possibility? Yes. Am I convinced that it's the reality? No. I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that there is no useful criterion we can apply to determine historical notability for our purposes. I'm not ready to give up on the concept yet.

As for your claim that this incident clearly satisfies your criteria for historical significance... do you realize there are people on this page claiming that you don't exist? The only thing "clear" to me is that it's not 100% clear whether or not this incident is historically notable, and anyone who claims to have certainty on that matter is either speaking carelessly, or they're hiding a lot. Again: If you say this is "obviously" historically significant - or if you say it's "obviously" not historically significant - then you're wrong. In particular, you're wrong to call it "obvious" or "clear". It's clearly murky. -GTBacchus 21:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't exist, really... I just log in occasionally to clean up but you're right, "obviously" and "clearly" should probably be blacklisted from debates. WikiScrubber (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
For me, by reference to a source which demonstrated the historic nature - something other than the flock of news stories triggered by the AP wire story which I presume was behind this flurry. So, for instance, Suicide of Megan Meier has extensive after the fact analysis; it passes a WP:DUCK type test. In the end, it is subjective; in this instance I see precisely nothing but the same story repeated for each locality, which for me is not duck shaped. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
And on more closely reading WP:N, I see it says "Misplaced Pages is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability". Yet what we have here is exactly that short burst of news reports. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Then again, immediately before that comment is "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence". Is anybody game to argue that the incident is lacking in this regard? WikiScrubber (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Not even doom music can save this article now. Er, actually...
    This is within the closer's discretion, and it seems like most of the overturns are rehashing the arguments from the AFD. Endorse. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Good close. — sephiroth bcr 07:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment from closing admin - I'm not going to comment directly on the close since I have reviewed it several times in light of requests on my talkpage, but I would like to note that the material has been temporarily userfied to allow the editor who requested it to use the sources etc to add some mention to our existing articles on either Anonymous (group) or on internet vigilatism. I shall be deleting the userspace copy in due course, assuming that the editor in question has finished with it Fritzpoll (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Well within closer discretion, especially since no real arguments overcame the ephemeral nature of this story. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion I'm really not one to bring this up and normally disagree with it's usage but do no harm really applies in this case. The abuse was perpetrated by two minors (the oldest being 14 if I recall) with clear mental problems. Notability is not temporary, please think about that for a minute, by claiming this is notable you are saying it should remain an article forever. Do we really want to have an article documenting the crimes of two minors forever? How is that not causing harm? Please, think of the children. BJ 08:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    Comment - They were 14 and 16. -GTBacchus 12:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • There is talk of trying them as adults too and given some of the sensationalist news on the subject (which will stick around forever) they may be well served by a neutral article on the topic. WP:HARM or WP:BLP don't apply to an article about an incident which does not identify the perpetrators. WikiScrubber (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No, we don't need a second AfD - the purpose here, as I understand it, is basically to decide whether or not I made an appropriate close. There was enough discussion to close the debate, it's just that you (and others apparently) think that I did something incorrectly. I'm sure yandman is just referring to the fact that we don't normally do the policy arguments per se in this venue, since they've been done at the AfD. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Good closure, properly assessing balance and relative strength of arguments. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, with caveats (NB: I supported deletion at AfD): The overturn !voters raise some interesting points. I would strongly suggest that this be taken to WT:NOTNEWS as a case study, and the wording of that essay clarified. Further, if people on both sides of the debate are going to cite it as if it were WP:POLICY, then it should be proposed for guideline designation, and subject to the normal debate process that a guideline goes through. That process would probably clean it up sufficiently that debates like this will be less frequent and heated in the future. As for the content in question, I don't find it objectionable, it's just this content being a stand-alone article. It's too hyper-specific, and I really doubt that anyone would ever search for it. Boiled down and recontextualized it would make a good section at Internet vigilantism. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 16:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    Note that whilst people keep using WP:NOTNEWS as a link, the policy itself is at WP:NOT#NEWS Fritzpoll (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The essay promotes higher standard for inclusion of news events than the policy. Because they have the same name, people are confusing the two thinking that the essay is policy. AfD hero (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think people can read the top of pages and work out which is an essay and which isn't. I find it more likely that people just miss out the extra keystroke, but neither of us can assert what it is people are definitely doing. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's exactly what happened here (in the request no less), as well as multiple times within the AfD. It's not at all obvious to non-regulars like myself and clearly is the source of great confusion. It's particularly disconcerting that this essay, which sets a significantly higher standard than the policy in force, has the more obvious shortcut (WP:NOTNEWS) than said policy (WP:NOT#NEWS). This needs to be fixed. WikiScrubber (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn WP:NOT#NEWS would doesn't seem to apply. I don't think this is "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." which is the only thing I see that justifies deletion of an event. Its not anything like "announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism". So the delete arguments have to be taken with a serious grain of salt. Given that, correct outcome was keep. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I was uninvolved prior to this review, but from viewing the AfD it appears clear that there was no consensus for the deletion of this article. This wouldn't be an easy AfD to close in any respect, however the closing admin's comments appear to weigh his personal views above those of the community. AfD is intended as a mediation procedure, not a judgment or binding arbitration. If there is no consensus in the community, the proper result is "no consensus". – 74  19:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    I'm intrigued as to how you know what my personal views on this article are?  :) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It does appear from your comment that you "broke the tie" by offering your own judgment rather than declaring "no consensus" as you probably should have. Note that the article apparently only survived 5 hours before it was put up for deletion and likely would have improved significantly were it given a chance. WikiScrubber (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse Deletion This afd was properly closed.--Sloane (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Contrary to the assertions at the head of this deletion review, this was a perfectly appropriate use of WP:NOTNEWS to evaluate the weight of arguments at closing. Our articles should discuss material likely to be of continuing importance, rather than transient attention; numerical votes don't change that. If this proves to be an enduring topic of coverage outside of Youtube and 4chan, then the article can be rewritten in the context of that continued importance. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Is that the essay (before the link was fixed) or the policy (after)? They are two different standards - the former apparently a failed attempt to supersede the latter. WikiScrubber (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The links have, as far as I'm aware, pointed to the same things all the way through this process, from the time of article creation to now. I personally think people just forget the "#", but I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong :) Fritzpoll (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: User:Tagishsimon, after instructing me to "Get over it" above, proceeded to try to change the policy to support their view. That aside, there was an interesting response from User:SmokeyJoe regarding primary and secondary sources. I would suggest that the Harvard Law School treating the issue (even if in a blog) satisfies even this higher standard, as well as that of the article formerly known as NOTNEWS (which also suggests setting precedent as another way to gain notability/notoriety, which may well happen here too). WikiScrubber (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not tried to change policy, and I resent your careless attitude in making such an accusation. I asked at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability diff that mention should be made in WP:N of WP:NOT#NEWS. Misplaced Pages tries to deal in verifiable fact. You have completely failed in this, wikiscrubber, and it is stupid and reprehensible of you to try to mount such an accusation given the evidence is but a click away. You do a gross disservice to yourself and the rest of us by seeking to smear those who disagree with you; such tactics disgust me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC).
Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 4: Difference between revisions Add topic