Content deleted Content added
S Marshall (talk | contribs) Facepalm |
→Where is Kate?: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:*:I’m a bit confused about all of this. Firstly, I have only read that there are general BLP concerns on the article, what specifically are the BLP concerns? And secondly, why do the BLP concerns need to be under a deletion review, and not the articles talk page? [[User:TheSpacebook|TheSpacebook]] ([[User talk:TheSpacebook|talk]]) 16:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
:*:I’m a bit confused about all of this. Firstly, I have only read that there are general BLP concerns on the article, what specifically are the BLP concerns? And secondly, why do the BLP concerns need to be under a deletion review, and not the articles talk page? [[User:TheSpacebook|TheSpacebook]] ([[User talk:TheSpacebook|talk]]) 16:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
||
:*::I think we're treading very dangerous ground with [[WP:BLP]] by creating a content fork to list what amounts to a bunch of unsubstantiated celebrity gossip. [[WP:NOTGOSSIP]] is relevant. I think the closure focused too much on the number of !votes and the presence of sources that might be reliable and that, in this case, these BLP concerns should have been weighed more in the closure. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
:*::I think we're treading very dangerous ground with [[WP:BLP]] by creating a content fork to list what amounts to a bunch of unsubstantiated celebrity gossip. [[WP:NOTGOSSIP]] is relevant. I think the closure focused too much on the number of !votes and the presence of sources that might be reliable and that, in this case, these BLP concerns should have been weighed more in the closure. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
||
:*:::[[Moon landing conspiracy theories]] are a bunch of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, but they are ''notable'', which makes the topic encyclopedic. The [[Where is Kate?]] article isn't about the location of the Princess. It is about those unsubstantiated celebrity rumours flying around during the past few weeks. This gossip has received enough significant coverage to make the topic notable. [[WP:NOTGOSSIP]] tells us that {{tq|'''Not every''' facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography}} (emphasis mine). This one, however, warrants inclusion. Even gossip, if significantly covered, can achieve notability. [[User:OwenX|Owen×]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>☎</big>]] 17:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse'''. The closing admin provided a detailed explanation for the close, which seems to correctly reflect consensus. If the ''participants'' in that AfD did not give sufficient weight to WP:BLP concerns, that is not something the closer should overrule with a supervote. Personally, I do not see any clear BLP violation here. The article is thoroughly sourced, and maintains a neutral tone about the subject, correctly attributing rumours to the RS that quoted them, as required by our policy. Either way, we're not here to relitigate the case, only to determine if the close reflected participants' consensus, which it did. [[User:OwenX|Owen×]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>☎</big>]] 16:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
*'''Endorse'''. The closing admin provided a detailed explanation for the close, which seems to correctly reflect consensus. If the ''participants'' in that AfD did not give sufficient weight to WP:BLP concerns, that is not something the closer should overrule with a supervote. Personally, I do not see any clear BLP violation here. The article is thoroughly sourced, and maintains a neutral tone about the subject, correctly attributing rumours to the RS that quoted them, as required by our policy. Either way, we're not here to relitigate the case, only to determine if the close reflected participants' consensus, which it did. [[User:OwenX|Owen×]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>☎</big>]] 16:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
||
* '''Endorse''' the original closing decision. Uses RS throughout. The specific BLP concerns have not been made clear. The conspiracy theories/rumours are clearly sectioned off and uses RS to show they are unsubstantiated. This is not just ‘internet or tabloid gossip’ as highly reputable international sources have discussed it and the impact of it. [[User:TheSpacebook|TheSpacebook]] ([[User talk:TheSpacebook|talk]]) 17:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
* '''Endorse''' the original closing decision. Uses RS throughout. The specific BLP concerns have not been made clear. The conspiracy theories/rumours are clearly sectioned off and uses RS to show they are unsubstantiated. This is not just ‘internet or tabloid gossip’ as highly reputable international sources have discussed it and the impact of it. [[User:TheSpacebook|TheSpacebook]] ([[User talk:TheSpacebook|talk]]) 17:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:06, 21 March 2024
21 March 2024
Where is Kate?
- Where is Kate? (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Insufficient weight given to WP:BLP concerns compared to a !vote up / down count. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Just to clarify I'm seeking to relist the deletion discussion so that we can give proper weight to the BLP concerns that permeate this article. Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I’m a bit confused about all of this. Firstly, I have only read that there are general BLP concerns on the article, what specifically are the BLP concerns? And secondly, why do the BLP concerns need to be under a deletion review, and not the articles talk page? TheSpacebook (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think we're treading very dangerous ground with WP:BLP by creating a content fork to list what amounts to a bunch of unsubstantiated celebrity gossip. WP:NOTGOSSIP is relevant. I think the closure focused too much on the number of !votes and the presence of sources that might be reliable and that, in this case, these BLP concerns should have been weighed more in the closure. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Moon landing conspiracy theories are a bunch of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, but they are notable, which makes the topic encyclopedic. The Where is Kate? article isn't about the location of the Princess. It is about those unsubstantiated celebrity rumours flying around during the past few weeks. This gossip has received enough significant coverage to make the topic notable. WP:NOTGOSSIP tells us that
Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography
(emphasis mine). This one, however, warrants inclusion. Even gossip, if significantly covered, can achieve notability. Owen× ☎ 17:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Moon landing conspiracy theories are a bunch of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, but they are notable, which makes the topic encyclopedic. The Where is Kate? article isn't about the location of the Princess. It is about those unsubstantiated celebrity rumours flying around during the past few weeks. This gossip has received enough significant coverage to make the topic notable. WP:NOTGOSSIP tells us that
- I think we're treading very dangerous ground with WP:BLP by creating a content fork to list what amounts to a bunch of unsubstantiated celebrity gossip. WP:NOTGOSSIP is relevant. I think the closure focused too much on the number of !votes and the presence of sources that might be reliable and that, in this case, these BLP concerns should have been weighed more in the closure. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I’m a bit confused about all of this. Firstly, I have only read that there are general BLP concerns on the article, what specifically are the BLP concerns? And secondly, why do the BLP concerns need to be under a deletion review, and not the articles talk page? TheSpacebook (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Just to clarify I'm seeking to relist the deletion discussion so that we can give proper weight to the BLP concerns that permeate this article. Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. The closing admin provided a detailed explanation for the close, which seems to correctly reflect consensus. If the participants in that AfD did not give sufficient weight to WP:BLP concerns, that is not something the closer should overrule with a supervote. Personally, I do not see any clear BLP violation here. The article is thoroughly sourced, and maintains a neutral tone about the subject, correctly attributing rumours to the RS that quoted them, as required by our policy. Either way, we're not here to relitigate the case, only to determine if the close reflected participants' consensus, which it did. Owen× ☎ 16:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse the original closing decision. Uses RS throughout. The specific BLP concerns have not been made clear. The conspiracy theories/rumours are clearly sectioned off and uses RS to show they are unsubstantiated. This is not just ‘internet or tabloid gossip’ as highly reputable international sources have discussed it and the impact of it. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse per OwenX, the closer weighed the consensus correctly, and there were no real BLP violations that hadn't been already dealt with (tabloids, for instance, had long been removed). ——Serial Number 54129 17:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, so Kate Middleton's temporarily less visible after abdominal surgery and the media have done their collective nuts about it. In my view there are two things to review here. First is the decision not to delete our article about it, which I endorse in reluctant recognition of the consensus, and the second is the bizarre decision to call that article "Where is Kate?", about which I what the actual heck are we thinking?—S Marshall T/C 17:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)