- Corey Worthington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Subject is proven notable by massive news coverage. Article is not a BLP issue as it only repeats what has already been widely reported in the mainstream news media. If specific parts are BLP issues, then those parts can easily be rewritten, edited, or trimmed to make it compliant, but the vast majority of this is perfectly fine. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and Speedy Close. Can we stop going round and round and round with this? It's had 3 AfDs and 3 DRVs in less than a month. --SmashvilleBONK! 04:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. It's not nice to call people names unless there is incredibly good reason to do so. I don't care if there are cites or not, seems like a clear cut case of violating WP:BLP when an article does that. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The names you say were in news articles from reliable sources, and part of the basic reason for his notability, I think, is the strong reactions people have to the guy. If you really wanted to, why not take out the names themselves and say something like "the such and such paper and the so and so TV news did not support his behavior" or something and link to the articles. But I think without the negative stuff, of which there is plenty in the news, the article would be too far biased in favor of him - stuff like him being called a "hero," without the other side. I don't want to get into this too much though, I'm kind of sick of arguing about it other than I think it should be an article. --AW (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironically, you do realise you've just undercut the entire notion of these being reliable and independent sources, when you note that the sources have a 'tude all their own and call the guy names. It really doesn't make us look good when we start copying them in doing so just because we can - we're not monkey see, monkey do, and I'm sure the Britannica wouldn't for a moment entertain such treatment. Orderinchaos 08:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion This has got to come to a close soon. Massive news coverage is an exaggeration, massive self-promotion after a a bare 15 minutes of fame is more like it. Wikipedia as a project needs to improve the way it deals with WP:BLP issues and with some luck this may be the spark that starts this improvement, so in some ways this may all have been beneficial to the project. The drama surrounding this article is hopefully a cautionary tale to editors to consider these issues in the future. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion and speedy close per BLP. Sarah 06:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. All of the valid reasons have been stated many, many times. Instant celebrity is not notability. He will be forgotten in a few months, then we are stuck with an article about a person (and an event) with no lasting significance. How about waiting six months before re-submitting, then see if anyone cares. WWGB (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted - non-notable nobody. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The community was properly addressing this article, which had been returned to it after DRV failed to establish a consensus to support a BLP summary deletion, at AfD when the article was speedied. A discussion about the propriety of that speedying, and more broadly about the underlying procedural issues, has been proceeding at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Corey Delaney discussion, and there is, it is fair to say, a good deal of support there for relisting, such that there is likely soon to be a consensus there for the addressing of the issue at a new AfD at which all relevant issues might be considered by the community. I rather think, then, that a DRV isn't appropriate at the moment (although I, of course, think the most recent deletion to be altogether contrary to policy and, in any event, decidedly unhelpful [why the community discussion oughtn't to have continued is beyond me], for reasons that I need not to set out at present [but that FT2 sets out, in part, at the AN subpage, quite well]), as I think we might do well to reserve hope that broad support for a re-running of the AfD (to be, ideally, a final, at least until further information should become available, discussion about the article) might be established. Joe 07:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and speedy close - enough is enough. - 52 Pickup (deal) 07:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion We've been through this process several times now, and each time it's clear that this boy does not meet the criteria at WP:BLP. I hope that this is the end of this matter. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is that we haven't really been through this process fully, at least relative to new information that was raised at the (most recent) DRV (namely, that there may be other undertakings for which the subject might be notable and that his being public is no longer avolitional), because the most recent AfD was cut short/circumvented. What is clear is that there exists considerable disagreement about whether BLP merits deletion here and about whether the subject is notable. Where an article has been been summarily deleted per BLP and where a consensus is not borne out to sustain that deletion, persistent misunderstandings of BLP and the Bdj RfAr notwithstanding (we have repeatedly rejected, after all, the reversal of the presumption relative to BLPs considered for deletion as against keeping; we default, relative to BLPs as to anything else, to keep), it is appropriate that the issue be considered at AfD (in similar situations in the past, AfDs have sometimes been undertaken with the underlying article undeleted but blanked, which I suppose would have been fine here as well), and it has yet really to be considered at AfD. We create so much trouble for ourselves in situations like this when we repeatedly foreclose discussions prematurely, and we have seen again and again that once deletion discussions are permitted to run their course and properly visited by the community, most everyone, and certainly almost everyone who edits in good faith, is satisfied, even if the disposition is contrary to his !vote, and we would do well to remember that here. I would, then, once more, urge everyone to read FT2's summary of the matter and his attendant suggestions at the AN/Delaney thread, with the hope that we might, either here or at the AN thread, decide properly and once more to list this at AfD, in order that the issue might, for now, be definitively resolved. Joe 07:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - Seriously, enough is enough. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - This endless run of process is getting tedious. There has to be a point at which it comes to a close. Orderinchaos 07:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The discussion was closed after two days not five and there was no consensus justifying WP:SNOW. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seattle Sockeye – restore contested PROD, which additionally should not have been listed as a PROD since it had been previously discussed on AfD and kept – Stormie (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
|
- Seattle Sockeye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Please restore, article was put up for prod, but already survived an Afd here
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
|
|