< February 21	Deletion review archives: 2009 February	February 23 >

22 February 2009

Joyce McKinney – Request withdrawn – Stifle (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Joyce McKinney (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) I have created a properly cited and neutral stub article at User:Timtrent/Joyce McKinney and wish to move it over the salted page. I imagine the original deletion was because of the controversial nature of the subject. BLP is stated as the reason. But correct citation and non inclusion of libellous drivel ought to allow the page to be part of Wikipedia. Naturally I am content that people enhance the stub while it sits in "my" user space. I do not have admin rights so cannot see the deleted page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted The article focuses entirely negative aspects of the person and gives them undue weight. Also, since she was never actually convicted, it is inappropriate to make the accusation no matter how well sourced it is. - Mgm\|^(talk) 05:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment Wikipedia is not about fairness. It is about documenting in an encyclopaedic manner that facts as seen as verifiable and notable in reliable sources. One cannot exclude things as a matter of taste. This person has hit the news in two ways, first as a highly notable and verifiable set of criminal allegations that led to charges in the late 1970s and second as the first cloner of pets. In 1978 there was massive UK news coverage about her. That she doubtless leads a good and pleasant life today is not the aspects about her life that are notable, despite, presumably, being verifiable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted per Mgm. The public interest test, if you will, is failed. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Question Please tell us the rational for your statement "The public interest test, if you will, is failed"? While not at all a fan of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS we do have many notorious folk documented on WP, by no means all of whom are no longer living. And this person received substantial news coverage for each of her exploits. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] I think Uncle G expressed what I'd like to say far better than I possibly could. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] The intent of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about people notable only for one event is not addressed with this re-creation. M. McKinney has, as she is quoted as stating, avoided celebrity, and is not a person whose life and works have been publicly documented. She also maintains that the portrayal of her by the tabloid press in the 1970s is far from accurate. It's better to cover the event, not the person, in cases such as this. Take your cue from another encyclopaedia, the Encyclopedia of Contemporary British Culture (ISBN 9780415147262), which doesn't cover this as if it were a biography. It covers it on page 489, in its entry for "sex scandals". Other sources, similarly, cover this as a case (variously the "Manacled Mormon", the "Mormon sex-slave case", the "Mormon sex-in-chains case", and so forth). There's some scope for writing about this as a case, not the least of which is analysis of how the newspapers reported it. Remember the words from a big green box here at Deletion Review: Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep Deleted, agreeing with Uncle G, the event seems notable and probably motivates an article if sufficient WP:RS can be found. The person, however, seems streched - not because the article is "all negative" (there are notable people with few or no redeeming features) but because the person is not notable outside the context of the single event. WP:BLP1E could be contested on grounds of the cloned dog, but this being the same person is a question of speculation and uncertainty. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Withdraw. I see the point that people are making. I will redraft the article as a document about the event over the next few days. Thank you all for your guidance. I don't necessarily agree with you but I see no reason to argue further against a solidly building consensus now I see the basis of it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Request would it be possible, please,for me to see the original deleted article in case it has any relevant references in it? Email will be fine for that. If no refs please do not bother. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] The only source that it has is a book of quotations. You already had more than that at the beginning of this discussion. I note the existence of Mormon sex in chains case. ☺ I don't think that deleted content will be of any use to you. You are already beyond it. What will be of use to you now are more sources, of which there are some. Uncle G (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Many thanks. In that case let us close this review as withdrawn and move towards Featured Article status ☺ Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Joyce McKinney – Request withdrawn – Stifle (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I have created a properly cited and neutral stub article at User:Timtrent/Joyce McKinney and wish to move it over the salted page. I imagine the original deletion was because of the controversial nature of the subject. BLP is stated as the reason. But correct citation and non inclusion of libellous drivel ought to allow the page to be part of Wikipedia. Naturally I am content that people enhance the stub while it sits in "my" user space. I do not have admin rights so cannot see the deleted page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted The article focuses entirely negative aspects of the person and gives them undue weight. Also, since she was never actually convicted, it is inappropriate to make the accusation no matter how well sourced it is. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia is not about fairness. It is about documenting in an encyclopaedic manner that facts as seen as verifiable and notable in reliable sources. One cannot exclude things as a matter of taste. This person has hit the news in two ways, first as a highly notable and verifiable set of criminal allegations that led to charges in the late 1970s and second as the first cloner of pets. In 1978 there was massive UK news coverage about her. That she doubtless leads a good and pleasant life today is not the aspects about her life that are notable, despite, presumably, being verifiable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per Mgm. The public interest test, if you will, is failed. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Please tell us the rational for your statement "The public interest test, if you will, is failed"? While not at all a fan of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS we do have many notorious folk documented on WP, by no means all of whom are no longer living. And this person received substantial news coverage for each of her exploits. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think Uncle G expressed what I'd like to say far better than I possibly could. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about people notable only for one event is not addressed with this re-creation. M. McKinney has, as she is quoted as stating, avoided celebrity, and is not a person whose life and works have been publicly documented. She also maintains that the portrayal of her by the tabloid press in the 1970s is far from accurate.
It's better to cover the event, not the person, in cases such as this. Take your cue from another encyclopaedia, the Encyclopedia of Contemporary British Culture (ISBN 9780415147262), which doesn't cover this as if it were a biography. It covers it on page 489, in its entry for "sex scandals". Other sources, similarly, cover this as a case (variously the "Manacled Mormon", the "Mormon sex-slave case", the "Mormon sex-in-chains case", and so forth). There's some scope for writing about this as a case, not the least of which is analysis of how the newspapers reported it.
Remember the words from a big green box here at Deletion Review: Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted, agreeing with Uncle G, the event seems notable and probably motivates an article if sufficient WP:RS can be found. The person, however, seems streched - not because the article is "all negative" (there are notable people with few or no redeeming features) but because the person is not notable outside the context of the single event. WP:BLP1E could be contested on grounds of the cloned dog, but this being the same person is a question of speculation and uncertainty. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I see the point that people are making. I will redraft the article as a document about the event over the next few days. Thank you all for your guidance. I don't necessarily agree with you but I see no reason to argue further against a solidly building consensus now I see the basis of it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Request would it be possible, please,for me to see the original deleted article in case it has any relevant references in it? Email will be fine for that. If no refs please do not bother. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only source that it has is a book of quotations. You already had more than that at the beginning of this discussion. I note the existence of Mormon sex in chains case. ☺ I don't think that deleted content will be of any use to you. You are already beyond it. What will be of use to you now are more sources, of which there are some. Uncle G (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Many thanks. In that case let us close this review as withdrawn and move towards Featured Article status ☺ Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Cunard/Article/BookRags – Moved to mainspace per unanimous agreement – Mgm\|^(talk) 06:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Cunard/Article/BookRags (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) (restore \| cache \| MfD)`\|`AFD1`\|`AFD2`)` This article was deleted in 2007 because the article did not show why BookRags is notable. I have rewritten the article in my userspace and present it to the community to decide whether or not it deserves inclusion on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation (if there are people who disagree, I think it's at least worth an extensive mention in the now-parent company. (that article should cite the business article about the acquisition rather than a press release) - Mgm\|^(talk) 11:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the suggestion! I've added some of the acquisition information into the parent article. Cunard (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation Rewritten in a good manner. Coaster7 (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation, though I never like Alexa stats. But the rest work for me! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation. Looks fine to me. Trusilver 21:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation per Trusilver. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation per Trusilver. – Warrington (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation meets the notability requirements, and is nicely written and presented to boot. Themfromspace (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Cunard/Article/BookRags – Moved to mainspace per unanimous agreement – Mgm|^(talk) 06:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Allow recreation (if there are people who disagree, I think it's at least worth an extensive mention in the now-parent company. (that article should cite the business article about the acquisition rather than a press release) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestion! I've added some of the acquisition information into the parent article. Cunard (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation Rewritten in a good manner. Coaster7 (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation, though I never like Alexa stats. But the rest work for me! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation. Looks fine to me. Trusilver 21:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation per Trusilver. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation per Trusilver. – Warrington (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation meets the notability requirements, and is nicely written and presented to boot. Themfromspace (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:Rulers known as "the Great" – Deletion endorsed. – — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Rulers known as "the Great" (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) (restore \| cache)`\|`TFD2`)` Rulers known as "the Great" of page\|reason=The reason for deleting this page was that there is no connection between the rulers who have appended the phrase "the Great" to their name. There is no doubt that there is generally little or no historical parallel between the rulers who have this title to their names, but the fact is that they do indeed have that title in common. And that is exactly what is the point of this template. Some rulers are generally known for "the Great" in their titles and this template serves to provide information about the wide variety of examples of this usage of this title. Furthermore it seems like a very shaky foundation to call the deletion of this template a consensus based on 5 positive votes in 7 days. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, which was unanimous. Most TFDs don't get even that many comments. DRV is not TFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] I've also fixed formatting on this DRV and moved it to the correct day's log. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] ~~Oppose deletion~~. So I guess what I should have done when I oppose a TFD is, instead of going the bureaucratic way, was to have just reinstated the templates manually? As that would have at least sparked the interest of the people who actually maintains the articles instead of the handful of people that frequents the TFD? --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] I've struck your "oppose deletion" comment, because by listing here, it is already clear that you oppose the deletion of the template. Placing additional bolded "votes" may make it appear as though your position has more support than it actually does. Please prefix additional comments with Comment. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] … or don't prefix them with anything at all. Closing administrators can read, and can tell when a simple discussion contribution is just that, without any boldfaced words. Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion per community consensus expressed at the TFD. Erik9 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. The TFD asserted that the template linked together rules that are unrelated through encyclopedic or historical rather than lexicographical means. Perhaps a disambiguation page is more suitable. (in that case the template history needs to be moved into articlespace without a redirect prior to creation to sort out attribution requirements). - Mgm\|^(talk) 11:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion The discussion was closed correctly, which is all we are discussing here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, reason given for overturning is not procedural or policy-related, this is not TfD round 2. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - There was clear consensus at the TfD, and I see no valid reason to overturn the deletion. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse no matter which way you can spin it, a 5-0 vote for deletion in a TfD is a consensus. Themfromspace (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] But a lot of them did address the issue as if it were an article that they were discussing, rather than a navigation template, which is what this was, and is, used as. (The Indonesian Wikipedia even classifies its equivalent as such, even though we didn't.) I don't see any discussion in the TFD discussion of why readers should not be able to find one "the Great" from another, or why the common navigation elements of these various articles' "See also" sections, linking other "the Greats" as "See also" articles, shouldn't be put into a template in order to aid consistency and maintenance. Do you? There's also scant evidence that the people arguing that such a connection between all these articles was original research really looked at the template itself, or indeed followed the TFD nomination, otherwise they would have followed the link at the top of the template to List of people known as The Great#"The Greats" and would be there complaining right now. Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion Contrary to Uncle G's comment, reading the TFD, most of the opiners clearly differentiated between the template that they were discussing and the relevant article - though many of them suggested that the article probably should also be deleted. But they didn't go so far as to nominate it themselves - but that is a common behavior pattern in AFD when an other stuff exists argument is made - nobody goes and deals with the other stuff. The TFD consensus is clear, and it seems equally clear that they knew they were opining on the deletion of a navigation template. GRBerry 20:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Really? Simon Burchell says that it's "not a topic", which is unequivocally an article argument. Black Falcon says that the grouping is original research, but that would seem to have only weak application to what is, in essence, no more than a collection of ordinary "See also" links, and again be an article argument not a navigation template one. Uncle G (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:Rulers known as "the Great" – Deletion endorsed. – — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Rulers known as "the Great" of page|reason=The reason for deleting this page was that there is no connection between the rulers who have appended the phrase "the Great" to their name. There is no doubt that there is generally little or no historical parallel between the rulers who have this title to their names, but the fact is that they do indeed have that title in common. And that is exactly what is the point of this template. Some rulers are generally known for "the Great" in their titles and this template serves to provide information about the wide variety of examples of this usage of this title. Furthermore it seems like a very shaky foundation to call the deletion of this template a consensus based on 5 positive votes in 7 days. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, which was unanimous. Most TFDs don't get even that many comments. DRV is not TFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also fixed formatting on this DRV and moved it to the correct day's log. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose deletion~~. So I guess what I should have done when I oppose a TFD is, instead of going the bureaucratic way, was to have just reinstated the templates manually? As that would have at least sparked the interest of the people who actually maintains the articles instead of the handful of people that frequents the TFD? --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck your "oppose deletion" comment, because by listing here, it is already clear that you oppose the deletion of the template. Placing additional bolded "votes" may make it appear as though your position has more support than it actually does. Please prefix additional comments with Comment. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - … or don't prefix them with anything at all. Closing administrators can read, and can tell when a simple discussion contribution is just that, without any boldfaced words. Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per community consensus expressed at the TFD. Erik9 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The TFD asserted that the template linked together rules that are unrelated through encyclopedic or historical rather than lexicographical means. Perhaps a disambiguation page is more suitable. (in that case the template history needs to be moved into articlespace without a redirect prior to creation to sort out attribution requirements). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The discussion was closed correctly, which is all we are discussing here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, reason given for overturning is not procedural or policy-related, this is not TfD round 2. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - There was clear consensus at the TfD, and I see no valid reason to overturn the deletion. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no matter which way you can spin it, a 5-0 vote for deletion in a TfD is a consensus. Themfromspace (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But a lot of them did address the issue as if it were an article that they were discussing, rather than a navigation template, which is what this was, and is, used as. (The Indonesian Wikipedia even classifies its equivalent as such, even though we didn't.) I don't see any discussion in the TFD discussion of why readers should not be able to find one "the Great" from another, or why the common navigation elements of these various articles' "See also" sections, linking other "the Greats" as "See also" articles, shouldn't be put into a template in order to aid consistency and maintenance. Do you?
  There's also scant evidence that the people arguing that such a connection between all these articles was original research really looked at the template itself, or indeed followed the TFD nomination, otherwise they would have followed the link at the top of the template to List of people known as The Great#"The Greats" and would be there complaining right now. Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Contrary to Uncle G's comment, reading the TFD, most of the opiners clearly differentiated between the template that they were discussing and the relevant article - though many of them suggested that the article probably should also be deleted. But they didn't go so far as to nominate it themselves - but that is a common behavior pattern in AFD when an other stuff exists argument is made - nobody goes and deals with the other stuff. The TFD consensus is clear, and it seems equally clear that they knew they were opining on the deletion of a navigation template. GRBerry 20:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Simon Burchell says that it's "not a topic", which is unequivocally an article argument. Black Falcon says that the grouping is original research, but that would seem to have only weak application to what is, in essence, no more than a collection of ordinary "See also" links, and again be an article argument not a navigation template one. Uncle G (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.