The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The nominator has given a thoughtful rationale for deletion. The rationale has received significant support, and defence, from other editors. There are of course a number of keep arguments made. But the bases for a number of them have been refuted: a couple of delete !voters have gone to significant and successful lengths to do so on a policy basis. For example "no policy/guideline basis for setting the GNG aside" is a rationale refuted as having been made without reference to WP:NOTNEWS. Not all the keeps are weak - a number of them directly deal with NOTNEWS - but a number of them have been given less weight due to the refuted "news coverage=inclusion" view.

The numbers here seem to be 7-5 to delete (with one keep being explicitly "weak"), but it is the balancing of the arguments that has tipped it firmly into "consensus to delete" territory.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy

[edit]
2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a difficult decision, but I think the right one. There will be some who feel that the news item went viral and is notable, and that deletion must be due to censorship or prudery. It isn't. It's because this really is, in this day and age, "just routine news". Emails are routinely forwarded whose creators didn't want them to be, they routinely get mass circulated, a huge number of things "go viral", and many people put details of sexual performance of past partners online or send them to close friends - for fun, to embarrass exes, or for other reasons.

By way of comparison, many news items of significance (murders, speeches, suicides, tragedies and "funny page" news) have long been considered "routine" even though they routinely gain widespread coverage in reliable sources. We don't document everything. This seems to be of the same kind - if we can agree that most suicides, murders or other horrific incidents are "just routine" and salaciousness isn't a factor, then "embarrassing emails sent out by friends that get commented on for being widely circulated lulz" probably are of the same kind too. Perhaps only the most notable or those with some specific reason, should be given their own articles.

In brief, I'm not sure at all that this meets the spirit of WP:NOT. The question is whether "person writes embarrassing email (content irrelevant) that a friend forwards and goes viral" is sufficient for WP:NOT#NEWS.

In this case there are a lot of cites, it has gained mentions in reliable sources and the letter of WP:GNG. But where as a community do we set the hurdle of WP:NOT#NEWS to ensure not every last widely circulated internet mistake becomes a Wikipedia article? Internet circulated emails, memes and other viral matters - even those commented in reliable sources - are as routine as political speeches, suicides, murders, and funny page or human interest news snippets. This one seems to be "just another person who sent an email about their sex partners that got forwarded by a friend to the world". They're all but routine. Hence after some deep thought, nominated at AFD. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but disagree. "Value" is not the same as "data". Removing never adds data, but often adds value. Canonical example, a 200 page report nobody will read contains more "data" but less "value" than a summary that will be readily readable and noticed, and hence more widely useful. A project policy contains less data but is of more value than a dump of the 20 MB of threads and discussions that may have produced it. Why do people use Wikipedia itself when all our articles are based on information available elsewhere or google-able? Because it's more value, even if less raw data. Removal of unsuitable pages can be every bit as important as addition of suitable pages on the project's value to a reader. Consensus and the community decide which is which - which is in effect what this page is doing now. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree too. Victor, what about hoaxes - deliberate misinformation? For nine months last year Wikipedia had articles about a political party which was said to have made a revolution in Brunei and overthrown the Sultan, and about the man who was said to be President in his place. Those were totally false; don't you think deleting them improved the encyclopedia? JohnCD (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course hoaxes have to be deleted, but this article is not a hoax. Let's end this debate, as it is a philosophical sidebar on whether WP:IAR applies in deletion debates. I think we will all agree that WP:IAR is a much weaker argument than one referencing actual Wikipedia policies Victor Victoria (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I can't agree with you (so please don't say "we will all agree"). In fact, you totally missed my point. My point isn't about WP:IAR, it's about WP:5P. Every policy and guideline is somehow based on the five pillars. By going back to the five pillars, I'm saying that I don't care what the policies and guidelines say, it is quite clear what needs to be done here to keep Wikipedia on track. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not relying only on IAR, but on NOTNEWS (which applies to the fuss, as well as to the document) and BLP. I agree that my comment three above is straying from the point; but I thought your assertion that "Deleting is definitely NOT improving" needed to be challenged by a counter-example. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a consideration (and the good faith is not in question). But most of the coverage was not commentary on the controversy (and "media discussion over routine privacy breaches" is also very routine and needs a fairly high standard to pass WP:NOT#NEWS. For example, is there evidence that any reliable sources have assessed this controversy within the field of "controversies over privacy" and concluding this is a significant one?). As a controversy, is this seen or will this be seen as a controversy of "enduring notability" (WP:NOT) that changed, shaped or defined the debate on privacy compared to a thousand other private communications that someone's friend posted to the world and went viral?

It just doesn't seem so, or at least there's not currently evidence of the possibility (WP:CRYSTAL). Some events do have significant impact on a controversy and are seen or will be seen as significant points of enduring notice in the debate. But right now we don't have good evidence this is (or is seen as, or will be) anything more than "another privacy breach controversy of similar kind as many many others have been or will be". FT2 (Talk | email) 06:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not operate on a standard of "enduring notability". It operates on a standard of notability is not temporary. This was a notable controversy as evidenced by the fact that it was covered by many sources independent of the subjects. Hence, it's notable. I have already covered in my original argument why WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to this article. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does - precisely that. WP:NOT has included this wording for a long time: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events". Before then it stated that Wikipedia considers "enduring historicity". NTEMP is guideline wording. NOT is policy. It's useful to go back to policy and basic principles on difficult cases like this. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely because we operate on a principle of "notability is not temporary" we have policies such as WP:NOTNEWS and guidelines like the last clause of the WP:GNG to help us avoid assigning notability to things which may be in in all the papers but are of no enduring significance. There are lots of murders, which each get coverage in reliable sources, but we don't want articles about every one; we ask, is there anything significant about this one, such as a change in the law resulting? Is there any reason why it will be remembered in a year?
In just the same way, occurrences of "indiscretion is leaked to the internet, goes viral, brouhaha about privacy ensues" are frequent enough that, even though the brouhaha may be in all the papers, we don't want or need articles about each new example. This particular one has unusually salacious subject matter, but why is it significant enough to need recording in an encyclopedia? JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I simply remain unconvinced about your notability argument. Can you honestly say that this would be looked up in an encyclopedia in 5 or 10 years (let alone 100)? I'd be surprised if I still remember this in a few weeks, myself, but I admit I really don't care much for history. Fact of the matter is that, at least for me, this is something I would go to news.google.com for instead of an encyclopedia. That is what WP:NOTNEWS is all about. How was this a historical event in any sense of the term? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection I think that, foolish though she was, the author of the document is also a victim (of her "friend" who leaked it, and of the general heartlessness of the Internet) and that we have a duty of care to her under the policy clause I quote just above. Yes, it is already public in the internet, but putting it in Wikipedia gives it more status, more accessibility and more permanence. JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the last two entries: I absolutely disagree that "gone viral" implies "notable" - things can go viral that are utterly trivial, but, per WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events". Nobody could claim that there is any "enduring notability" about this. And WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTNEWS, is an excellent policy basis for setting the General Notability Guideline aside, even if the fifth bullet point of the WP:GNG did not already explicitly say that significant coverage does not guarantee that a subject is suitable for inclusion. JohnCD (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Both as a guideline v. policy and also by its own stated wording, WP:GNG makes clear it is subordinate to and overridden by WP:NOT. WP:GNG itself also cites WP:NOT as overriding any presumption.
If the topic were considered to be routine as an event (NOT#NEWS) and of unproven significance as a controversy (NOT#CRYSTAL), then that's the bottom line.
Being widely reported doesn't change that the event is within "routine news" these days, the controversy such as it's been has been of no enduring significance at this point (CRYSTAL, zero actual evidence), and by agreed policy Wikipedia doesn't exist to cover routine news even if it was widely reported for a brief period. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will be more precise. I disagree that "gone viral plus global news coverage" necessarily implies the "enduring notability" which is what concerns Wikipedia. In today's global village, things can go viral and get global coverage which are utterly trivial and will be forgotten within weeks. JohnCD (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not least, "gone viral" is incredibly meaningless, non-specific and not a criterion of any kind for keeping. The expression means "circulated very quickly and widely", it's not some additional notability criterion. But many things are spread very quickly and widely without being notable- a specific chain or hoax email, a specific Darwin Award winner's story, a video of some celebrity supposedly having sex, or a specific Lolcat image are 3 quick examples. Some get coverage too and are still ephemeral all the same.
We usually exclude "measures of supposed popularity" from AFD and consider evidence of meeting both WP:NOT and WP:GNG instead - see the "notability fallacies" at arguments to avoid. The concern at this AFD is that while GNG is met, NOT is not. WP:NOT is not optional or subordinate to GNG, in fact NOT trumps GNG (both by GNG's own wording and as a policy to a guideline). FT2 (Talk | email) 16:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a comment also, when I close AFD's where this has happened, one option is to close it as delete - but explicitly note the basis of the deletion. A usual wording is something like "delete, without prejudice to recreation if enduring notice is later established" (or "...if NOTNEWS is later met").
The aim being that it's explicit and unambiguous that it's for want of that one point and if it were to change then recreation could become valid. Would something like that work? FT2 (Talk | email) 18:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Updating: the forum was internal. So it shows the place it happened took action, which is expected, but it doesn't add to any attention by the wider world. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about "without objections to undeletion", rather "recreation". Victor Victoria (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a standard wording, people'll know what it means. You'll find numerous AFDs closed that way ("without prejudice to relisting/recreation"). "Recreation" would include both re-posting or rewriting, as well as requests to undelete due to achieving notability later. The standard venue for that is deletion review ("DRV") where it's common to post "This has now become notable due to the following evidence, can undeletion be agreed". FT2 (Talk | email) 19:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category