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 speedily deleted. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Wayne Sinclair[edit]

Larry Wayne Sinclair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Page has been deleted multiple times under various editions and criteria - attack page, non-notable, even G4 (even though that was misapplied). Larry Sinclair was salted; this page was an (annoying) "workaround". We (read: I) decided on the RPP page that I'd bring it here and get some consensus on notability - it seems borderline. At least the page is sourced now. Tan | 39 14:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like the previous version was salted for good reason. Someone is clearly desperate to get this onto Wikipedia, and that alone is good reason to treat it as highly suspect. Delete as attack page, non-notable, BLP violation, WP:NOTNEWS, etc etc etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentKeep Attack page on who, Sinclair or Obama? It was a notable event and this seems to be written from a reasonably NPOV, given partisan politics and the ongoing election cycle. Can someone link the past AfD's here for latecomers to catch up on past arguments? Jclemens (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there were any, Jclemens - had only been speedied. Tan | 39 15:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reread WP:BLP, and I do not see how this is in violation. It's well-sourced. The only thing I'm not convinced of is enduring notability as an event, it appears to be solely relevant to United States presidential election, 2008, but similar information on other accusations and controversies is not included in that article, so a merge would be of questionable appropriateness. Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Don't we have an article on Paula Jones? These media sideshows occur during every U.S. Presidential election. By holding a press conference yesterday, Mr. Sinclair has opened the door to being a public figure about whom we could reasonably have an article. As long as these allegations are out there in the rumor mill anyway, I think we owe our readers, per WP:ENC, to provide balanced, sourced information about the man behind them. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article, so it doesn't matter if we have an article on Paula Jones. What matters is notability via third-party, reliable sources. Tan | 39 15:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I went on to note the new version of the article is sourced, although I'm having some problems keeping sources in the article. this would be my preferred version currently: [1] -- Kendrick7^talk 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this was re-created at a different location to bypass protection. We might as well scrap the WP:BLP policy otherwise. Shem^(talk) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The previous article was deleted as an attack page. I disagree strongly with the way this page was recreated to bypass page protection, but the new version is not an attack page, and is well-sourced and well-written. As it stands it passes WP:BLP and it passes WP:V. If this degenerates into an attack page by the end of the process the closing admin is asked to strike my vote. BradV 15:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This calls into question the appropriateness of salting the prior article--regardless of how bad the last one was, this one has a reasonable facsimilie of balance, so the prior one could have been improved. If the consensus is to keep as a separate article, it seems appropriate to move it back to the previously salted name. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I've expressed that at WP:RFPP. BradV 15:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think salting was fine given the lack of reliable sources prior to a few days ago; we never know the future. Refusing to unsalt Larry Sinclair after new sources came to light isn't so cool though. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep he seems notable at present but, I have to admit this strikes me more as an "In the News" thing than a bio. Honestly, I don't like it for a number of reasons (including the "work around". WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS really isn't a reason to keep it or delete it. It is reliably sourced (though more sources are better). I think if people are more likely to search for him -or- he is better known as Larry Sinclair than the article needs to be there and someone needs to ensure NPOV, etc. I note that significant work appears to be going on to sort the BLP concerns though I'm not sure whom precisely it attacks more/less, etc. If it's a one event thing though maybe it would more appropriately be included in a controversies article that covers all the "candidates"? Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (EC)Delete. Let me start by disclosing that I edited this article for content on BLP grounds, to include removing most of the sources that Kendrick7 favors, before it was nominated. As stated above, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally not considered to be a persuasive argument at AfD. My concern here is in three parts: 1. The subject is not notable, as he has not been covered in multiple independent reliable sources. Blogs, absolutely, but reliable sources, no. The only reliable mention I see so far is in the Sydney Morning Herald, and that is no better that borderline as to notability. 2. The subject itself is not yet appropriate for encyclopedic treatment per WP:NOT#NEWS. This subject is pure blogosphere fare. Virtually no reliable sources (call them "mainstream media" if you like) have weighed in on this story. We are not supposed to be the vehicle to publicize facts, we merely summarized what reliable sources all ready have stated. At this point, this is a story for WikiNews, not WP. 3. BLP - not so much for Obama (he's a public figure of the first order) as for the subject himself. Various version of this article claimed a lengthy prior criminal record without reliable sources. I think that WP:BLP is very clear as to the need for top-tier sources for negative information in this articles. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in the Sydney Morning Herald (reprinted in The Age) and The Politico and on News Limited's site. Yes, the story has appeared in dozens of blogs over the past 4 months, but the article doesn't rely on such sources. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's appeared in such diverse sources as [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57248 WND] and The Washington Blade. The Huffington Post covered it, and The Sun Herald, of all places, picked up the press club event news release. Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that the sourcing on the article has improved considerably since this morning. I am not familiar with all the sources that have been mentioned, as normally I don't do much with political articles. I will considering revising my !vote if it appears that that these other sources establish the information in the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the article. I've added even more sourcing. --Faith (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move back to Larry Sinclair. IMO, there was insufficient reasoning to justify deleting and salting Larry Sinclair in the first place. BLP concerns? Remove anything potentially defamatory/libelous, and then protect the page if need be. Since when do we delete? The reasoning to salt Sinclair's article could be used on a lot of high profile and/or controversial BLPs. We don't do that. Sinclair passes WP:N. Enigma ^message 16:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep significant coverage in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep coverage is becoming more extensive as the days pass. I found 4 RS with minimal searching. --Faith (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No permanent encyclopedic value to humanity, even though it might be of interest to citizens of one country immersed in the sidebar dramas around their election (as indeed I found the sentence "Sinclair's biography, though, may get in the way of that pitch: Public records and court filings reveal that he has a 27-year criminal record, with a specialty in crimes involving deceit." in [2] to be of news-ish value, odd that what purports to be a biography of Sinclair doesn't mention that, eh?). Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article history--it was in there, but another editor took it out due to BLP concerns. I agree that it adds balance and perspective to the article, and should be included if it is kept in any form. Further, would you suggest an appropriate venue to merge this information? Does it belong in a summary of the 2008 presidential campaign? I agree that the event is more notable than the instigator. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)There's ongoing discussion on the article talk page about that. Two sources and Sinclair himself (in his blog and press releases which I'm not going to link to) all admit to his criminal past, but that's not quite convincing my fellow editors. I'm unfortunately at 3RR over that. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re my opinion about a suitable venue: does wikinews have a tabloid/gossip section for trivial election press inanities? this could go right next to "terrorist fist bump" Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE This guy has no credibility whatsoever, as evidenced by the fact that none of Obama's opponents have tried to capitalize on these allegations, which are roughly equivalent to some random guy claiming that he had a threesome with the McCains or the Romneys. --Midnite Critic (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter that he has no credibility. It was reported in RS's, who have raised their own questions about his credibility. Even WND, no friend to Obama, reported that he failed the lie detector. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, how does it matter whether he has credibility? That has nothing to do with whether an article on him belongs on Wikipedia. Tons of people with no credibility have articles, as that is not a factor. Enigma ^message 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - under WP:NOTNEWS, and the quality of the sources. Now, I think the Australian news services are generally reliable sources, but I am hard-pressed to say they are doing anything other than publishing a "look at the crazy Americans and their political process" article here, and there is not a single mainline American news source covering Larry Sinclair's allegations. In particular, the link farm is worrisome, filled with fringe sites, weekly special interest papers, press release publishers and blogs. It will be noteworthy when, say, CNN does a 90-second report on him or the NY Times publishes an actual article (as opposed to a 2 column-inch filler). Right now, this is tabloid news, not an encyclopedic subject. Risker (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The American MSM has obviously taken a collective a pass on this, with the exception of The Politico. Arguably, the Australian media is being objective and doing their job. Anyway, WP:N isn't "only things covered by CNN." -- Kendrick7^talk 20:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I have been pondering this one all day. Although I believe that weak notability has been established I believe this individual is trying to gain exposure by making these accusations and an article on him only helps him achieve his goal while it does not better the Wikipedia project. I would suggest that a sentence or two on the accusations be included in the article on Barrack Obama and this article be deleted until such time as any of his statements are made credible. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see this article as being "useful" (before someone asks why a road in Texas is useful and not this: because this is nearly certainly a fabricated lie, a publicity stunt by a probably random Obama-hater). · AndonicO ^Engage. 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting point about the publicity stunt angle. The available information feels very "spammy" and self-promoting. Risker (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Larry Wayne Sinclair is a fabricated lie? -- Kendrick7^talk 20:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you misunderstood; I'm sure the "this" referred to Sinclair's accusations. --Faith (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Sinclair is back in the news and is being covered by US RS news sources in recent days. This establishes more NOTE than before, and is certainly pressing this into an article worth fleshing out (including adding back in his criminal record). Lack of credibility should be included in the article, not used as a means to delete the article itself. --Faith (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Which American links or reference sources in the article would you consider to be reliable mainstream sources? Risker (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Wayne_Sinclair&action=submit#External_links --Faith (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is not in question. Credibility, though, is another matter. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Textbook case of inserting oneself into public controversy. Wacky "press conference" seems to have resulted in a number of new sources becoming available. FCYTravis (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt as a recreation of what was already deleted and salted. Textbook cases of "inserting oneself into public controversy" does not encyclopedic make. This is massively inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So, just to get this straight, while Americans are barraged by partisan snippets of this man's story in their inboxes for the next 5 months, or even 4 years and 5 months, you think that under no circumstances should they have recourse to wikipedia as a NPOV source to know anything about the man behind these allegations? Seems like a partisan stance. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If it makes you feel better, I'm not an Obama supporter by any stretch. And what part of this article that you've had deleted several times makes you believe it's NPOV? It's a content fork, it's not even a biography of Mr. Sinclair. It fails on so many levels I don't even know where to begin...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll add that if you honestly believe that this person will still be talked about in 4 yrs and 5 months (or even 8 years and 5 months), then I'll be the first in line to apologize. I'm willing to bet he won't be talked about in the next 5 months even. Unless of course, Wikipedia is stupid enough to believe that he has done anything meriting a page dedicated to him because of his "press conferences", on a top-10 website. I don't care what anybody's inbox says. Unsubscribe to the chaff my friend. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, we have 2,419,731 articles. If he's talked about elsewhere, our readers will have this article as a resource. If not, hardly anyone is going to stumble upon this. I've not trying to get this on the front page! -- Kendrick7^talk 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every article should be trying to get on the front page, and every article needs to be a credible article, appropriately balanced, appropriately cited, and appropriately encyclopedic. We do have 2.4 million articles. And more than 8 million editors. So what. That doesn't excuse even one bad article (although there are many, I agree, and that doesn't mean we don't block the one bad editor that we stumble upon daily. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is that the controversy exists. He's a liar, criminal, and not credible; then we put that in the article. We don't delete because the person caused their own controvery; we report it according to the RS. --Faith (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is the very definition of FORK. It isn't about Mr. Sinclair, it's about his alleged encounter(s) with a notable person. At the very least, it is improperly named. It should be in a "controversy" article about Obama, or as a snippet somewhere else. I'm absolutely baffled as to why anyone would find this appropriate as an article at this point. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do rather suspect that if it were periperial to an election in South America, rather than North America, that all of a sudden it would be seen as the news trivia that it is... Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. The article is a blatant coatrack. EJF (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs, and standard message given on create-protected pages Sceptre ^(talk) 21:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does this meet CDS G4? Tan | 39 21:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that much of the material is the same as what was on Larry Sinclair. Kendrick7 was working on it on the article's talk page, but that was then deleted as well. Enigma ^message 22:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G4 is only for articles previously deleted via deletion discussions, like this one. It's not for things that were previously deleted only by CSD criteria. Tan | 39 22:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It meets the spirit of G4, not the letter. This is definitely an instance of WP:IAR. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as G4 reads, "This does not apply to ... speedy deletions", I'm pretty sure we can't apply it here. But I'm really just arguing for the fun of it, I know what you guys are saying. Tan | 39 22:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...which means we agree :-). G4 is for previous whatever whatever whatever. I agree, in 99.9% of deletion debates. IAR, on the other hand, is for debates that don't hafta follow G4. This was deleted and salted, by several admins, for very good reasons, and should be deleted again. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not even close to the same article as before, though. I think the argument should focus on why it should be deleted now, not why it was deleted in the past. Tan | 39 22:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same article. Over and over and over again. The difference this time is it just has superscript reference numbers now, all of which prove that this is a fork, a coatrack, a BLP vio, and a one event vio, suitable for slow news days, tabloid type newspapers, yellow journalism, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and blogs. Not for an encyclopedia. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was salted by one admin, because people kept recreating unsourced garbage. Per WP:BURO, that's of no matter now. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was salted by one admin after being deleted by several beforehand. No admin salts after the first deletion. This also has absolutely nothing to do with "BURO", which I personally detest. I'm all for article creation, and article enhancement, and article protection. I'm strictly against BLP problems though. This has severe BLP problems, both against Mr. Sinclair and Mr. Obama. This has absolutely no place in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a blog, and not a "news source". Wikipeida regurgitates old news, of the notable nature. This person is not notable, and neither are his claims to notability. This is an aggregious misuse of Wikipedia to further his agenda. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As you can see, User:Lucasbfr went ahead and deleted and salted it, rendering the AfD moot. Enigma ^message 22:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which was absolutely inappropriate and a total abuse of admin tools, in my opinion. Tan | 39 22:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is already at DRV as it turns out, see Wikipedia:DRV#Larry_Sinclair. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:45, 19 June 2008 (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.