Template:Infobox academic division – vacate non-admin close and relist The intent here is to reopen the existing discussion to allow somebody else to re-close it. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the TfD process details, so rather than risk totally messing that up, I'm just going to hereby declare the close void and request that somebody who is more up on TfD process actually implement that for me. – -- RoySmith(talk) 19:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Poor non-admin closure, with no explanation of the reasons for reaching the declared conclusion; appears to simply count !votes rather than weigh up arguments. The editor concerned was requested to reconsider, but - after having to be prompted - has refused. This should at least have been "no consensus", if not relisted for further discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to whatever the first passing admin re-closes as. Agree with the nomination. The discussion on the closer's talk page is below standard for a closer. The closer is an experienced Wikipedian, but I guess he lacks experience in closing contested discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or just relist. Not a suitable discussion for closure by a non-admin, not a suitable non-admin closure and not a suitable response when the closure was queried. Experience is one thing, judgement is another and that response demonstrates a lack of the sort of judgement required to determine consensus and close discussions. St★lwart111 04:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, inappropriate non-admin closure. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Kirby Delauter – Endorse. Numerically, there's not overwhelming consensus to endorse, but as I picked apart the arguments, I found that many (certainly not all) of the people arguing to overturn were more bothered by the process than the result. So, I'm going to call this an endorse, if only a weak one. For what it's worth, here's my sound-bite distillation of the debate:
Overturn:
At a minimum, should be a redirect
List at AfD, no real privacy concerns, name and actions are already fully exposed
Should be deleted, but isn't a pressing enough reason for speedy
No assertion that article met criteria for speedy, so must be overturned
Keep current article deleted, but reverse salting
He is notable in his own right and deserved a page before his remarks
The deletion was too hasty, headlines all over the place
Endorse:
WP:BLP1E. Speedying was WP:IAR
No notability established in article.
Very definition of WP:BLP1E
No continuing notability here
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy
Correct end outcome, even if process was bad
Acceptable WP:IAR due to valid WP:BLP1E concerns
Wrong function, right result (the point of WP:IAR)
Allow new draft
Other:
History merge with Draft:Kirby Delauter.
Move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter and list at AfD
Redirect to Frederick News-Post
Relist; should be deleted, but requires proper discussion – -- RoySmith(talk) 02:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Referenced to BBC and Washington Post (among others). Deleted (and salted) "per IAR" by admin to prevent discussion of how to handle it. At a minimum, should be a redirect to the article on the county where he is a councillor (though with more and more and more sources continuing to appear, it remains to be seen whether a full article is merited. WilyD 15:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note from deleting admin: This is, IMHO, a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. Speedying it was an application of WP:IAR, rather than having a policy-violating article lying around for 7 days while an AFD is undertaken. This was not a WP:CSD#G10 deletion, it's just an attempt to apply common sense and BLP. Just because social media has latched onto this guy as the patsy du jour, and there are lots of editorials floating around out there about the editorial that started all this, it still clearly meets all three criteria of BLP1E.
It is simply an unfair smear to say I did this to prevent discussion; I made it clear to WilyD and another editor on my talk page that a DRV would be a reasonable way to approach this if WilyD disagreed, or he could undelete the article and I'd file an AFD. I've suggested to someone on my talk page that Talk:Kirby Delauter would be a reasonable place to have a discussion on whether it should be a redirect to the applicable government article, or WilyD could do that himself.
I'll happily respond further to anyone who asks a question (please ping me), but I think I've had enough of accusations of "bullying", "admin abuse", and "attempt to prevent discussion", so I won't be responding to WilyD anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't wish to be accused of abusing your tools, in the future, don't abuse your tools. Frankly, I would've rather avoided the whole thing, but was probably the only user who could've challenged your abuse of your admin tools without being indefinitely blocked by you. Frankly, I probably would've argued for redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government, but dealing with admin abuse is more pressing. WilyD 12:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, no true notability established in article. As above, textbook case of meeting all three conditions of BLP1E. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. What we have here is a very minor local official saying something incredibly stupid on Facebook, getting (rightfully) reamed by the full power of the Internet, then apologizing for the stupid thing and skulking away. It's the very definition of WP:BLP1E. There are plenty of websites around who will never let the guy forget his moment of stupidity; Wikipedia is not (or at least should not be) in that business. I realize that saying so might be more germane in an AfD than a DRV, but frankly DRV is one of our saner processes, and has been generally quite good about ensuring that process-for-process's-sake doesn't trump what we as an encyclopedia are about: I hope it stays that way. 28bytes (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also deleted and salted at Kirby delauter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore). I can't help thinking that protecting a redirect or two would be preferable, so we can know which article to watch and revert instead of playing guess-the-title. —Cryptic 17:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Good call by Floquenbeam. There's no continuing notability here. He said a dumb thing, the Internet took notice, and he recanted. There's no continuing notability here. This is exactly what BLP1E is for. Mackensen(talk) 00:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. List at AfD and discuss properly. Taking administrative shortcuts in the name of sensitivity is self-defeating. BLP1E is not even, per se, a reason for deletion. In this case, a merge and redirect to Streisand effect might be in order, supported by at least one source.[1]. WP:CSD is way overdue in documenting when BLP concerns justify speedy deletion, but I don't think this is the sort of case to make the cut. There are no real privacy concerns, his name and actions are already fully exposed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other !voters here appear to be casting AfD-style !votes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
History merge with Draft:Kirby Delauter. The new version was written after reading the deleted version (found here), and attribution of the authors of the deleted version is required, explained at WP:Copyrights. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, process is important, but not important enough to overturn this correct end outcome. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowballs chance, but overturn I spent far too much time thinking about this. I too agree this should be deleted. But there isn't a pressing enough reason to do so in this way. If this was a person without wide coverage doing something stupid as a BLP1E, I'd endorse the speedy as the harm to the person could be significant. But the coverage is so broad, I don't think we'll be adding to the problems by having this for a week. Further, it's quite possible the coverage is broad enough we should have an article on the event. I think it's a NOTNEWS case, but that's not utterly clear at this time. Are we going to speedy thatarticle too? Just a bad precedent. And while we aren't a bureaucracy, we also aren't an "adminocrasy". Content (and deletion is a content call) shouldn't be being made by a single admin. IAR is a core policy, but it should be used sparingly when it involves the tools. Hobit (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Frederick News-Post, which will probably win some sort of award for this, and semi-protect or apply pending changes to that article. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and Floq's actions in this case as a perfectly acceptable invocation of WP:IAR due to valid WP:BLP1E concerns.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that all BLP1E concerns should result in IAR deletion? If not, could you explain why this case is special? Hobit (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. If I were reasonably sure the deletion was meant as a parody of Delauter's own behaviour I could have gone along with it as "within discretion". However, I'm not sure so I'll take things at face value. No assertion has been made that the article met any of the criteria for speedy deletion so the deletion must be overturned. Thincat (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*points upward to where I asserted that it easily met all three of them* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned above blp1e criteria. These are not CSD criteria. They are not even deletion criteria where there is a viable merge option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I misread what you were saying. However, I would argue that the article did not have a credible claim of significance, thus meeting A7. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources which meet WP:N are a credible claim of significance. In fact, an extremely strong claim. A7 is meant to be a considerably lower bar than WP:N. Something that meets our notability requirements can't be an A7. Hobit (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, CSD#A7 explicitly separates these. An article about a real person... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.... This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources Can you say that Delauter is important for shooting his mouth off and then apologizing? Hardly. Is it significant that a politician got bad press for a poorly-thought-out statement? More like an everyday occurence. There is no "depth of coverage" to meet WP:N.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes. "This ... is a lower standard than notability". So the requirements to meet A7 must be lower than WP:N. And since WP:N purely about sources, sources are an assertion of notability. This has been discussed a number of times at CSD and the feeling was it was pretty plain as written that reliable, independent, sources in the article are an assertion of importance and so there was no need to clarify. We can have that discussion again if you feel it's unclear as written. That said, the litteral words make it clear that an article that meets WP:N isn't an A7 candidate. Hobit (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is not purely about sources -- it's about significant coverage in sources. My argument is that he hasn't received that significant coverage -- neither has his one-time remark. All of it has been "I can't believe he said that" sort of coverage. That should not count as significant for the purposes of a BLP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, A7 shouldn't be having to worry if a source is "significant" or not. The bar is lower than WP:N. Secondly, how the heck is [2] not significant coverage? Hobit (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Easily. It's an op-ed about a questionable decision by the county Ethics Commission. Op-Eds aren't reliable sources for anything but the paper's opinion. Yes, the decision affected Delauter, but he's not the focus of the story. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's an editorial by the paper, not an op-ed. It is certainly reliable as far as facts stated go. Eh, I'll start a discussion on CSD to get A7 clarified. Last time it got shot down because it was argued it was obvious reliable independent sources are an assertion of notability. Sounds like you disagree, so we should probably clarify. Hobit (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - wrong function, right result. That's kind of the point of WP:IAR. It is acknowledged that such an action is "against the rules" but that breaking said rule produces a result that is in the best interests of the project. So we ignore the "rule-breaking" to implement the result. But it's been speedy-deleted and hasn't been deleted as a result of a discussion, so G4 basically won't apply if someone wants to re-create it for the sole purpose of having it listed at AFD (and probably deleted again). But that seems overly bureaucratic and not what OP is suggesting (unless I've misread something). St★lwart111 00:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(I !voted above). Yes, yes, I entirely agree the encyclopedia is improved by not having an article on this topic. However, the environment for maintaining WP is not improved by rather flagrantly ignoring the criteria when performing speedy deletions for non-urgent reasons. Thincat (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not improved, but probably not irreparably damaged either. I think the deleting admin has accepted that the criteria were ignored, in favour of a less tangible (but obviously agreed-with) concern with regard to BLP. I don't think that recreating this article could properly be described as "maintenance" and I can't see any other legitimate maintenance being impacted by this case. The benefit of IAR is that such decisions are seen as outside the "norm"; anomalies that shouldn't be relied upon or referenced as a precedent for other actions. St★lwart111 15:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But what makes this case different than other BLP1E cases? If nothing, shouldn't they all be IAR deleted? And if something, what is it? Hobit (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no significant difference I suppose. I have no particular problem with the article being moved to draft space so that it can be listed at AFD (beyond the original BLP concerns) but I think its a bit of a waste of time. St★lwart111 23:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I will ask for the article to be deleted, but I think there's enough noise here that it requires a proper discussion. This sort of case is why I feel that taking shortcuts with the deletion process under the banner of IAR is almost never worth it; if we'd just gone by the book we'd be a lot closer to having this conclusively deleted quietly, rather than creating a Streisand effect and bringing all of the Wikilawyers out of the woodwork. Lankiveil(speak to me) 01:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Floquenbeam's speedy deletion was in good faith, as is WilyD's DRV nomination. The deleted version of the article (which I viewed through Google cache) contained only information about this event. WP:BLP1E seemed to apply, and there were BLP issues because the article contained primarily negative information related to the "Use my name again unauthorized and you'll be paying for an Attorney" incident.
On the one hand, BLP1E is not a speedy deletion criterion. On the other, the biographical article about a living person contained only information about an event that cast the subject in a very negative light. I won't vote to endorse or overturn the speedy deletion. Instead, I have created a draft that hopefully addresses these issues.
The subject has received coverage in three aspects of his life: (1) as president of the construction company W.F. Delauter & Son, (2) as a member of Frederick Board of County Commissioners, and (3) as a member of the Frederick County Council.
WP:BLP1E's first point says the policy applies "[i]f reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Delauter has received significant coverage prior to this event; here is a small sample:
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
The Baltimore Sun is a major newspaper, the largest circulation newspaper in the state of Maryland. It cannot be dismissed as being a "small, local newspaper". Prior to this incident, Delauter arguably passed Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. After this incident, he clearly does.
I have created a draft article at Draft:Kirby Delauter to discuss the three aspects of his life. I included the incident in the "Frederick County Council" section because it happened while he was (and still is) a county council member.. Because the event takes up a small part of the article, I do not believe the draft violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects.
There might be BLP issues in the future if disproportionate information about the incident is added to the article. If that happens, semi-protecting (or full-protecting) the article will solve the problem.
And this folks is why we have discussions about notability rather than process. Which is what would have happened had process been followed. Learn from it. I'm not saying we should have the article, I'm saying that it turns out there is a solid case that we should. And bypassing AfD is just not helpful in figuring that out. Hobit (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(note: I !voted above), I'm fine with moving this draft to article space. If someone wants to bring it to AfD, they can. But it's written quite well, meets WP:N on the face of it, and doesn't have a WP:UNDUE problem. I think at this point a BLP1E argument would likely fail. If undue issues start creeping in, semi or full protection can be used. Hobit (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn at least in part Salting a politician's biography, where the politician has made national and international news is not what speedy is for - even, if speedy was fine for whatever that article was, users should be able to attempt to make a BLP and N compliant article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I think that Cunard said it best. He is notable in his own right and deserved a page before his remarks. Surely, the comments do not make him less notable. The draft is a balanced article that does not give undue weight to the incident. Hopefully this will spur the creation of articles for other members of the Frederick County Council (which needs a page itself, as the body was inaugurated in 2014). Bangabandhu (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I guess there' no need for me to repeat what has already been stated (the deletion was too hasty, Dealuter made headlines all over the place, etc.). He's more than worthy of inclusion on this website, if only as a further example of politicians attempting to silence media critics and reporters. Constablequackers (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original IAR close, but Allow new draft. Cunard's new draft appears to nicely settle the outstanding BLP1E concerns. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
