Hindu terrorism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted in May 2008 following an emotional vote (as opposed to constructive review) pretty much along "pro-Hindu" vs. "anti-Hindu" party lines. In November 2008, the term "Hindu terrorism" made headlines as a neologism (BBC, 'Hindu terrorism' debate grips India, Reuters, India wonders how deep "Hindu terrorism" goes) so that undeletion would already suggest itself due to changed conditions in the real world. But there is also Saffron Terror, a synonym that passed AfD with "no consensus", so that I suggest undeletion and subsequent merge into Saffron Terror. dab (𒁳) 17:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Also, is there a reason for the delay of nearly a year in requesting this review? Stifle (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Since this is new information being presented with regards to the topic rather than new information regarding the (now rather old) deletion itself, would it not make more sense (and cause less fuss) to incorporate this new information into a new article (or section of an existing article since you seem to favor a merge), rather than dredge up a problematic version for which there was a fairly strong consensus to delete? For the record, I would have been more than happy to provide a copy of the deleted material for use as a reference in fleshing out other articles. Shereth 17:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • well, I was going to just make Hindu terrorism a redirect to the existing Saffron Terror, but I noted it was WP:SALTed and did not want to override protection unilaterally. It is true that the deleted content does not absolutely need to be restored. It will be enough to remove protection from the title. Since, as Shereth points out, this is about new information which appeared after the original deletion, I would usually have done this unilaterally as the straightforward course of action, but I wanted to present this to a few more eyes because of the intrinsically delicate nature of the topic. I do not understand Stifle's question of "is there a reason for the delay of nearly a year in requesting this review", seeing that I first noted the existence of this deleted article and the associated AfD debate yesterday. --dab (𒁳) 08:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're happy just to unprotect the title, then I've no problem with that. I'd also support userfying the content if desired. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have seen the deleted content, and I don't think userification is necessary. Let's just unprotect the title and turn it into a redirect. --dab (𒁳) 14:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Would an admin who hasn't participated in this discussion close it please? I don't see any need to keep this discussion open. Shereth 15:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The grounds for review are those specifically described as permitted in the DRV closure: I'm bringing this back as a good faith request to examine the actual closure rather than the actions of the original DRV nominator.

My position is that the closing admin did not close in accordance with the debate she was supposed to be examining. Instead, KillerChihuahua seems to have closed in accordance with the consensus in an entirely different debate, and I think this goes beyond admin discretion. I think that if KC did not intend to implement the consensus that was actually in front of her, she should have !voted rather than closing.

The outcome I seek is a relist at AfD on the grounds that the debate was defective. —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse original AfD close, endorse DRV endorsement of the AFD.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what policy-based grounds?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made an argument at the previous DRV that was policy based and i believe still stands.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The previous DRV was rightfully closed as an endorsement of the original closure. Unless there was some flaw with the previous DRV discussion, then the result obtained there - that is, to endorse the original closure - should stand. Shereth 17:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was such a flaw. The DRV focused on the original nominator's bad faith rather than the admin's actions; please see the DRV closure statement for the reasons for this one.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such is your interpretation, but it is not one I share. I shall have to continue to endorse the closure. Shereth 18:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn AFD/DRV and relist AFD. KC closed the AFD of version of the article that was as such not previously at AFD with the consensus of a previous RFA, which was not the correct thing to do. Even if we assume that this was indeed acceptable closing, deleting the article afterwards, after closing it as merge(!), makes the whole point of closing it as "merge" void. The previous DRV did not address this outcome but seems to have ended in drama, which should not be the reason to close it as "deletion endorsed". Since now we do not have a sockpuppet nomination, we can concentrate on the AFD that should have been discussed in the previous DRV. As I pointed out above, the close was "weird" at best and even if one endorses the close, the following deletion foils the alleged result as merge by not allowing people time to merge the content. Thus I think the correct result should be to restore the article and then relist it at AFD to reach a separate consensus for this version of the article. Regards SoWhy 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually see this as a separate article? Ignoring the renaming, there was only a bit of change to the heading and a small section copied over from Rachel Corrie. The merge notice was there a month which wasn't productive. Nothing was added to the main article and nobody could remove anything from this one without being reverted (content was even being added). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was separate enough that it warranted a new AFD which took place. I understand that it was the same article at the first AFD (having re-read my !vote above, it's probably a bit unclear, my apologies) but I think it was changed substantially enough to warrant the second AFD. The extended discussion at the second AFD serves as a indication that the community did share this view and that they wanted a new consensus to be determined about the current state of the article. By closing the article with the result of the previous discussion (and subsequently deleting it), KC ignored this apparent wish for further discussion. The correct way would have been to assess the new consensus after the AFD has run for the full length and then act based on that. If the result had been merge again, then the better way to handle this would probably have been to history merge it to Rachel Corrie so that the information could be salvaged and incorporated to the merge target. Regards SoWhy 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do not think that a close as "merge" of any AFD can ever be interpreted as consensus to delete, no matter what happens afterwards. Merge translates imho as "keep the information but reorganize it". So the deletion was actually against the consensus because it deleted the information that was !voted to be kept. So the deletion itself should be overturned as not being in line with the correctly closed first AFD anyway. Regards SoWhy 07:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_19 has the original DRV. Protonk (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've notified KillerChihuahua of this new DRV on her talk page. I'd like to hear her input on this. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think we need to restore the article temporarily. One of the big argument is whether this is in fact a new article or not and how much effort was made to merge, none of which can be determined without seeing the history and the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist afd. . There have been two simultaneous politically inspired series of actions on this and related articles: one, to try to have as little mention of her as possible, not even a single article, and also delete any other articles having anything to do with her, and , on the other hand, to try to make as many articles as possible. I deplore both of them. The attempt to deal with a merge result in afd, by on the one hand not merging, and on the other, but merely redirecting, were equally inappropriate. In any case, this is a different article and needs another afd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 21:42, May 28, 2009
• Endorse AFD, endorse DRV, enough already - Anything related to the death of this person can be included in her article, as the AFD and the DRV correctly indicated. This new DRV is bordering on abuse of process. Otto4711 (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it's certainly not abuse of process because the previous DRV's closure specifically permitted an editor in good standing to relist it. My position is still that deleting an article on the basis of a consensus at an entirely different discussion is an abuse of process.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically the closer of the last DrV said "I won't object if a legitimate editor brings this to DRV again, though" in the DrV close. I think it's pretty clear that this isn't an abuse of process. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn to no consensus for two reasons. First, I don't see consensus in the discussion. Second, the closer closed the AfD early (3 days early I believe) and, if I read the closing statement correctly, closed it while ignoring the discussion. The AfD should have been allowed to run it's course. Relisting is also an option, but this has already gone on too long. Hobit (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AFD, DRV, end the drama nothing untoward about the close - we have few "reactions to..." articles; rightfully so, if the reactions form part of the notability of the matter, it should be included in the main article - if they don't they are not notable. People die amidst conflicts - some people state regret, others point at the dead person and say it was their fault - no surprise here. Relatives sue after people die - no surprise there - the US is a litigious society and you can just about find any lawyer to sue anybody over anything. People call for investigations, then time passes and people move on and no longer find the fire in their belly to dwell on one person's death among many. I think that the article was basically a POV fork from the main article - much as would be a Reactions to the death of Leon Klinghoffer would likely be in the other direction. Let's face it: nothing in anyone's reaction was much different than anyone would have predicted them to have been and are well covered in the main article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. This topic isn't encyclopedic, i.e. one would not expect to find it in an encyclopedia. Going on about how the discussion was listed in bad faith, or whether there was an explicit consensus, or not, is heading right down the road of process wonkery. My feelings have turned against this article since the last DRV. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it appears that the wonk essay has vanished. I shall have to rewrite it. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm surprised to see that your position has apparently changed since the last DRV, Stifle?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • • Yes, it has; my reasoning in the last discussion was that the process hasn't been followed, but I don't see a point in going through reams of process when the outcome is, in my view, clear. Stifle (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy.

          Possibly this article should be deleted, but I can't accept that the closer should get away with implementing the consensus from the wrong AfD discussion in order to achieve that.

          I'm really quite surprised that you don't see it that way, Stifle, in view of what I've seen of your previous contributions. (I'm less surprised at some of these others, which is why I've chosen your answer to reply to in detail rather than anyone else's.)

          Still, if that's how you feel, then that's how you feel and I'll accept it. But are you sure you won't reconsider?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

          • Yes, I'm sure. Wikipedia is not a court of law, although I am high on the list of people who use legal jargon inappropriately (and I'm not even a lawyer). There's no sense putting an article through more process for process's sake; in cases where there is a colourable chance of success, my feelings are different. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Why do I feel like Bill Murray with (marginally) more hair? Oh, I know, because I've seen this before. Endorse previous actions for pete's sake, and stop murdering poor defenseless electrons with rehashing this stuff over and over... Tony Fox (arf!) 16:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the last one was closed due to problems with the nom, where do you feel the debate about the merits of the case should happen? Hobit (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and figure out who exactly in this morass needs topic bans from I-P issues for a year. Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist at AfD If it's this messy then sadly a relist would likely make sense. I have little doubt that delete will be the likely result however we have processes and this seems to have been malformed. Relist, let it play out and move on. -- Banjeboi 03:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Good close. Eusebeus (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Boothroyd (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was previously deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (2nd nomination) and recreated due to the new controversy sparked by a recent article in The Register. The closing admin of the previous AFD (Jehochman (talk · contribs)) re-deleted the recreation as G4 although the new article (by definition) was not substantially identical to the deleted version (thus violating the letter of G4) and although the new AFD also had users !voting "keep", thus clearly not being uncontroversial. When asked to reverse this decision, the deleting admin did not engage in discussion but pointed to DRV. Speedy deletion was incorrect here (twice) and thus the article should be restored and relisted at AFD to allow full community discussion (which can be expected given the recent involvement of the subject of the article as an Arbitrator on this project). Regards SoWhy 08:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my three deletions. Please read my closing rationale, rather than the selective and inaccurate description provided by User:SoWhy. As recreated the article was a severe violation of our biography of living persons policy. Nearly half of the article focused on one recent, minor event in this person's life. Despite the fast talking explanations of those who recreated the article, it was nothing more than an attack page. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. We don't write biographies based on the scandal du jour. Jehochman ^Talk 08:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)You used G4 as a reasoning before you closed the third AFD. While we do in fact have a policy regarding such BLPs, there is no speedy deletion criterion that allows the deletion of such material if it has reliable sources (attack pages, as covered by G10 only apply to unsourced negative BLP for exactly this reason). To cite WP:BLP1E: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted" (emphasis added). Given the fact that the subject in question has appeared to give statements in public and to newspapers many times before the latest incident (refer [1] [2]) we cannot assume him to keep a low profile, thus WP:BLP1E does not apply here.
• But the argument you put forward is incorrect for another reason: Only one paragraph out of four focused on these recent events (and only using two sentences). I think you were too hasty in assuming a BLP violation here when the source of the controversy is available to everyone both in the reliable source provided and on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Resignation. Your deletion, while probably well-minded, is not within BLP oder deletion policy and as such should be reversed to allow the proper venues to handle this. Regards SoWhy 08:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion since requested by the subject of the BLP. The latest version of the article was even more of a BLP violation than previous ones. Mathsci (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist at AfD, speedy deletion is not for bypassing consensus. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not technically a speedy delete. There was a discussion here. Mathsci (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per WP:BLP and keep salted for three months to give the matter a chance to die down. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per WP:BLP; let the real world assess this; we can come back to this later on. Anyone who feels a burning need to write about this can do it over at Wikinews, or they can get a job as a reporter. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per BLP with no objection to recreation if the sources become available. Viridae^Talk 10:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn, relist if someone wants to Struck above, changed based on new sources. Viridae^Talk 13:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Viridae, do you feel the Register's article doesn't meet that bar? Hobit (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist at AfD. Come on, a new source appears and we close the (3rd) AfD after less than 1 day? Not a valid speedy nor reasonable WP:SNOW case. Hobit (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion We delete articles of people with only minor notability at their request. Hipocrite (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support that notion, but I do have two questions. #1 Does our current policy say that we do honor such requests? #2 Did he make that request? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, I didn't see either in the AfD. If both are true, I'd strongly support deletion in this case (at least unless "minor notability" fades) Hobit (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. Policy is descriptive, not proscriptive. We do delete individuals who have only minor notability if they request, so if that's not written into policy, policy is outdated. Yes, he made the request -see [3]. Hipocrite (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I still feel there was a problem with the AfD, and as that's what DrV is for, we should relist. But I'd !vote to delete at this point (unless notability improves significantly). Hobit (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. The closer made a number of mistakes here. He cited SNOW, SPEEDY and BLP. The Afd lasted just over an hour, with barely any indication that anyone had researched the subject, so claiming SNOW is not appropriate at all. Neither did he have any business citing CSD Speedy A7: an 'article...that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant' - the article detailed that the subject is a councilor, owner of an important website, and published author, as well as three seperate mentions in third party sources for noted actions. So that only leaves BLP as a grounds for deletion. And a 1 hour long Afd debate to discuss the merits of a BLP article that has existed since 2005, just because the subject requests its deletion because he has become the subject of some dirty laundry, is just not on, and smacks of censorship/cover-up. A non-attack page version of this article is entirely achievable. Rollback to a version prior to the latest controversy and properly list it as Afd as a non-notable BLP at AFD, where everybody can have their say. Otherwise, this DRV is just an exercise in performing the original Afd without the ability to improve the article, or even see its previous state. MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The non-attack version of the article had zero references. The only real coverage is that Guardian article, and it focuses on just one event in the persons life. There does not appear to be any way to write a neutral, reliably sourced article. The subject wanted the article deleted. Under these conditions, we should keep the article offline until such time as somebody is able to demonstrate the possibility of writing an acceptable article. Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Guardian and Time sources are both non-attack references, and cover two separate events. His status as an author and website owner are easily referenced. The only issue with the article appears to be notability, which is not a CSD. MickMacNee (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you link to the references you are proposing. I want people to see what you refer to. Jehochman ^Talk 16:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • [4][5]. MickMacNee (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The first link appears to be an opinion piece or tabloid journalism, and only covers one event in the subject's life. The second article only mentions the subject in passing. It appears that people are stretching WP:N, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP well beyond their limits. I see no possible way this subject qualifies for an article under our policies. Jehochman ^Talk 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is DRV not AFD. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per the second AFD, which closed less than a week ago; combination of BLP issues and a lack of solid sources added to the subject's request should trump a point-and-laugh style newspaper article. We don't need to kick people when they're down. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• very weak endorsement of deletion At present the scandal in question has only been reported in The Register. If however this matter becomes more widely covered we are going to need to have an article on this topic. For now, this does seem like BLP1E. I would however have strongly prefered given the new information that this go through a full AfD again. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  blink Did JoshuaZ just endorse deletion? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC) my apologies if you have endorsed deletion before; I've never seen it happen.[reply]

  • It happens on occasion. About one in every 5 or so. But in this case I'm only doing so very weakly. Don't tempt me to change my mind... JoshuaZ (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Endorse I don't like the speed of both the 2nd and 3rd AFD close. I think they should have stayed open for at least a reasonable period of time to allow comment. I think policy was bent a little on the quick deletions, and it at least appears it was done for the reason everyone's dancing around. That said at least at this time I don't think it should pass a full AFD and relisting is probably more trouble then it's worth.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. In addition to reasons provided above, am an advocate of the dead trees standard: the biography subject is not notable enough to be an entry at any reliably published encyclopedia and has requested deletion. A lot of site dramas would settle down if we simply applied this standard with no regard whatsoever to other factors. Durova^Charge! 17:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AfD. Actually I agree with Stifle, but I think DRV isn't the right place to make that case. From a DRV point of view, this is a deletion without a proper XFD, in the face of objections from an established editor who is citing a source—and thus the deleter was way outside admin discretion. I don't see we have any choice but to overturn and then !vote delete at the XFD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? You are contradicting yourself. Either there should or should not be an article. Which option do you prefer. Jehochman ^Talk 17:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a false dichotomy.

      I think DRV is for deciding whether the closer erred. In this case, I think he did, so I suggest overturning.

      I think AfD is for deciding whether there should be an article with this title. In this case, I think there should not, so at the AfD, I would suggest deleting.

      These two positions aren't mutually contradictory.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Good. We both agree that the article should be deleted. I have no further questions. Jehochman ^Talk 18:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • He appears to be objecting to the speedy closure. Although I agree with the closure by a different rationale which would remain unaffected, there have been instances where subsequent news coverage during the normal AfD cycle nudged an entry above the notability threshold. A recent, positive, and ultimately uncontroversial example was Susan Boyle. Dead trees has no force in policy, so for editors who don't subscribe to it the factor of developing news would be relevant. Durova^Charge! 18:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The article as it most recently existed was really two deficient articles welded together. The first is an article on a local politician, with marginal notability at best, that didn't establish notability at all and in practice focused on negative coverage. The second is an entirely negative article on a Wikipedian, sourced only to The Register, which is not an acceptable source to hang such information on - they have a history of tabloid-style shit-stirring with regard to Wikipedia. Importantly, the second portion also does not establish notability, so the article as a whole does not. That means, in turn, that the article as a whole absolutely does violate the BLP policy, and so sending it to AFD is pointless, and potentially harmful, bureaucracy. If it's possible to write an acceptable article on this subject, it should be written independent of the existing article, rather than restoring attacks and hoping they get cleaned up soon enough. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is plenty of non-attack material that has been summmarily thrown out in the haste to remove the article. Not everybody has view delete permissions, so continuing the deletion debate by discussing notability at DRV is utterly pointless. MickMacNee (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you referring to David's student days at St Catharine's College, Cambridge? Mathsci (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not in the version I've seen. MickMacNee (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ahem, earlier this month David Boothroyd was listed in the category alumni of St Catharine's College, Cambridge. Since notability is being discussed, more is required than being a local councillor and having written a useful but run-of-the-mill book on British electoral practices. If we were discussing Jeremy Maule, a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, who similarly worked as a clerk in the House of Lords and who before his untimely death in the the lates '90s unearthed documents in Lambeth Palace that changed the way the world viewed Thomas Traherne, it would be a different matter. In this case an openly gay local councillor appears to have mildly trangressed the very peculiar rules of play of an international internet site. This is not notable by any normal standards. Mathsci (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I refer you to previous replies. MickMacNee (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion - per MickMacnee. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The sources are sparse at best. One is Boothroyd's personal website, another is about Banksy and only mentions him. The only real source is about the controversy in the Register which is completely overblown. It is mentioned in just a single publication and since he doesn't appear to be blocked, their comparison to Essjay is a clear attempt at defamation. He's nowhere near notable enough for inclusion based on just a single controversy. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not want to sound cocky but you do realize that DRV is not about whether the subject is indeed notable or not? That is what the AFD was tasked to determine. The DRV is about whether the deleting admin's decision to close this AFD after just an hour and another similarly fast was correct within our policy (also considering that the article existed since 2005 and thus any BLP "damage" it could have caused already happened). Regards SoWhy 12:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You come off as clueless rather than cocky. The BLP damage is providing axe grinders and drama mongers a week to defame the subject on Wikipedia while the matter is debated at AfD. No, we should not do that when there is no chance whatsoever that the article will be kept. We don't do bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since these "axe grinders" and "drama mongers" (whoever they are) had since 2005 to defame the subject, it's unlikely that following the process for a few days would have made a difference. After all, your first close was already incorrect, which was days before the Register article. The whole point of AFD is to determine whether there is merit to keeping the article, isn't it? So I do not think it's clueless to say that DRV should not debate the merits of the article but the process of this discussion. You have made it clear what your opinion about this person's notability is but saying that an AFD with keep-!votes by experienced editors like Agathoclea (talk · contribs) has "no chance whatsoever" to end with anything but "delete" is quite an assumption that I do not think is merited by the actual discussion. I am not advocating to keep the article but I am advocating that admins should follow policy when handling AFDs and as I have shown in my nomination, neither WP:DEL nor WP:BLP justify such a quick deletion without time to discuss. Regards SoWhy 13:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was speaking about AfD #2, which was unanimous to delete. AfD #3 happened after the article was improperly recreated by a probable sock puppet account. I am not sure whether Agathoclea was fully informed about the prior circumstances. Perhaps you would ask that user to review the matter and comment here. The risk of axe grinding and drama mongering were greatly increased when Boothroyd's various Wikipedia identities were connected, and they resigned from ArbCom. Any clueful editor would see the potential for grave WP:BLP issues under those circumstances. The idea that nothing had changed since 2005 is highly disingenuous. Jehochman ^Talk 13:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The second AFD might have been unanimous to delete - after giving it only a little more than an hour of discussion. That is the point of this discussion here (otherwise admins could go around closing AFDs as SNOW delete whenever those in favor of deletion manage to comment on the matter before those inclined to keep). I would not contest the deletion if it had been within policy, I am asking for a review because you have not followed policy. And again, you can call me clueless all you want, but the second AFD was days before those connections were made (May 23 <-> May 26). You cannot justify a previous deletion in violation of policy on something that has happened days afterwards.
          • On a side note, I think Agathoclea (as an admin) is more than capable of clicking the link to AFD #2 and whether the recreating user is a sock or not (for which there is no proof or even indication enough to start an SPI case) has no impact on the validity of arguments. Regards SoWhy 13:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • For AfD #3, I did not assert WP:SNOW. I suggested that recreating a deleted article that violated WP:BLP, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:UNDUE was out of order. Those who disliked the result of AfD #2 should have come here to appeal, rather than making an end run around process. At the time I closed Afd #2 it was already common knowledge that Boothroyd had resigned from ArbCom. By their contributions TAway (talk · contribs) is obviously not a new user. The reason there's no WP:SPI case is that I don't know who the puppetmaster might be. Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's rather ironic to be talking about multiple accounts in the circumstance don't you think? Another irony is David Boothroyd reserving the right to become notable in the future, way back in August 2005. As for this specific debate, anybody would think no admin had ever seen a neutral verifiable BLP stub before, certainly fit for a proper Afd debate. It's a farce when looked at from a process POV, but obviously it is going to be chalked down to IAR/anti-wonkery, while ignoring the obvious conflict issues given the subject matter. I find the do no harm aspect particularly galling. I am definitely going to remember it at every DRV in the future where some admin or DRV regular gives me the runaround about how DRV is not Afd. You simply cannot simultaneously cite Afd 3 as a non-speedied and correct policy based closure of a deletion debate, and then claim it should not have occured in the first place because you yourself correctly speedily closed afd 2 and it must be appealed, and then carry on the deletion debate when it does happen, instead of addressing the reasons for appeal. That is definitely giving people who are obliged to follow policy the run around. The fact is, for me, the biggest error of yours here was in closing both Afds yourself. But to recognise that is definitely getting into the realms of self examination. MickMacNee (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I am still waiting for MickMacNee to say something about David Boothroyd and St Catharine's College, Cambridge. I'm the only one that's mentioned it on this page, although MickMacNee has suggested the contrary, completely inaccurately. This seems to indicate that MickMacNee is not in the slightest bit interested in any kind of accurate biography of David Boothroyd. Why then are he and others lurking here? Mathsci (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm afraid I really haven't got a clue what you are on about, I have already told you that his college is not even in the version of the article I have seen (and is not available to any non-admin or person who doesn't know where to look), so I am at a complete loss as to what you think I am supposed to be saying about it. If you are confused about the purpose of this page, read the instructions. MickMacNee (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • There was a line [[Category:Alumni of St Catharine's College, Cambridge]]. David was an undergraduate there. I found it in a google cache for May. Mathsci (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per blp and wp:notnews. There are too few sources to support a neutral biography. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send for a proper Afd discussion - since the initial deletion, substantially different articles have been deleted without any analysis of whether they have overcome the issues that made the earlier versions deletable. Is this guy notable? close call, I'm sure that most recipients of this much press would be considered notable by many here. I read WP:BIO differently, figuring that significant coverage beyond "news" is required, but that isn't necessarily the majority position. I also note that the suff that may be considered "contentious" was sourced, so BLP may have been effectively complied with. Of course, one person's view of what's "contentious" differs from another's. If you have a broader view, surely deletion of the material not the article is called for? read WP:BLP. The other reason to have a debate is so that it doesn't appear as though we are sweeping something under the rug. It may be sufficient to add a blurb at Criticism of Wikipedia and a re-direct, but without the debate, how do we know. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slapping a reference on scandalous material does not satisfy WP:ONEEVENT, an integral part of WP:BLP. Jehochman ^Talk 15:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And deleting the entire article instead of removing just the offending material doesn't either. MickMacNee (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Without the offending material, the article is just the recreation of an article that was deleted a few days before via WP:AfD and WP:SNOW. Jehochman ^Talk 17:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Both AFD closure decisions were made by you and both are being challenged here. Why are you trying to pretend they are not related? MickMacNee (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. G4 did not apply and the article did not meet any other criteria for speedy deletion. decltype (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I did nomination #2. BLP1E/BLP, arguable trivial to no notability, WP:VANITY concerns a possibility (?), and the fact the article was barely sourced. We don't need this article today. Honestly, I'd say just bring it back to DRV in 6-8 weeks with a properly sourced ((NOINDEX)) userspace draft that shows it has the potential. Then we can review this. All that aside, AFD #2 was perfectly legitimate. rootology/equality 08:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Striking for now based on Tyrenius's sources. rootology/equality 04:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per Duvora.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist to allow a proper evaluation. The 2nd AfD and 3rd AfD were both closed in just over an hour by the same admin, who then speedy deleted the article on the basis of those AfDs. Though I am sure this was done in good faith, it creates an unfortunate impression. The first AfD delete summary was "no indication that the article meets criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, WP:CSD#A7. It is a biography of a living person that entirely lacks references". The third was then largely justified by the second with the addition of WP:ONEEVENT. It is debatable whether these assessments are valid, and the outcome should not have been determined peremptorily.

There was not sufficient time for the article to be examined properly by the community and for any further information to be researched—which is a key aspect of AfDs. Boothroyd has a profile higher than the run-of-the-mill councillor and has been involved in several issues with some contention; he has not been backward in stating a controversial view. There are more references than those included to date in the article. Topics he has been involved in include: election statistics,[6][7] Banksy mural,[8][9][10] gay flags,[11][12][13]affordable housing,[14] Reagan statue,[15](page 2) BNP,[16] Wikipedia,[17](now also reported by Iain Dale[18]). There are a number of letters from Boothroyd published in the national press, stating his views on various topics. He is a frequent poster to the blog of Iain Dale,[19] who name checks him several times.[20][21][22][23]

In the light of his forthright utterances elsewhere, it seems somewhat disingenuous for him to be shy of an article detailing them, and improper for this to be a determinant of the article. It is likely that people reading his views in the media will look for further information. The article has steadily over 300 views a month,[24] i.e. over 3,500 views a year.

Ty 03:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist Deletions where done in undue haste. AFD is 7 days for a reason. Agathoclea (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that as the close stated earlier that I had not been aware of the previous situation. In particular I had been aware that there had been a first AFD which was kept. I would not have commented on the 2nd AFD as - as I stated in the 3rd - I considered DB as borderline notable which could go either way and as such I would neither delete nor object to deletion. The speedy deletion at AFD 2 was already out of process due to the previous AFD. There was no BLP critical information that needed hiding and the article had been around for years - so regardless of the possible further outcome a bad call. Closing Afd3 as G4 was equally flawed as G4 a) requires a previous deletion discussion which was not allowed to run its course and b) the article was different in the sense that a event has entered the picture that altered the balance of notability. To the content of the AFD in question I might add that there are some strange thoughts entering wikipedia like "Councillors are never notable - no exception" forgetting the point that DB notability (as weak as it might have been until recently) did not come from his position as local Councillor but from his wider political activities. Agathoclea (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Afd #2 was unanimous to delete. Thus, a WP:SNOW close was proper considering that the article had been around for years, yet had zero references. One would think, nothwithstanding the long list of trivial mentions posted by Tyrenus, that a few years would be enough time to come up with proper references for a biography. When the article was recreated, nothing was added except a severe WP:BLP1E violation. It doesn't take much clue to realize that this particular biography is receiving so much attention only because the editor has resigned from ArbCom. I am puzzled by the handful of editors who wish to keep an obviously deficient article about an unwilling subject, an article that has been, and would continue to be, used for slander. Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Afd #2 was unanimous, but it had only been open for just over an hour, which seems a very short time to be sure per WP:SNOW that it didn't have "a snowball's chance in hell of surviving deletion." The dissent on this page and more references show that is a highly questionable use of SNOW. Boothroyd is an elected representative in a powerful position on a committee whose decisions affect people's lives and businesses in the centre of London. When he is quoted in the press with a pronouncement on such issues, it is not trivial, particularly when they are outspoken comments. Nor is an article whose headline refers specifically to him.[25] It is up to a debate of editors to decide whether cumulatively this does or does not merit an article, but that debate should be held to achieve a proper consensus. We are not concerned with why it has received attention — which is something that cuts both ways. I regard the other issues he has been involved with as more significant than the wikipedia one. If the article is deficient, and remains so, then a full Afd will settle the matter. The "unwilling" subject is a public figure and a politician, who has shown no unwillingness to air his views elsewhere. He is, and should expect to be, accountable. You will have to be more specific about "slander", as I don't see where that applies, and, if there is anything remiss and improperly sourced, then there are procedures for taking care of that, as with any other article. Ty 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, relist at AfD, and forbid Jehochman from being the closer. He has made his position on this article crystal clear and a fair AfD requires an impartial judge. There were already keep votes at the new AfD on account of this person having been the subject of significant new developments since the second AfD, so Jehochman's speedy close in light of that was inappropriate. We need longer than one hour under threat of speedy deletion to incorporate all the source material User:Tyrenius has linked to above, so let the regular 7-day AfD process take its course. TAway (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse good close per blp1e. Eusebeus (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first I hear that blp1e is a speedy criteria. Agathoclea (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody asserted that. The actual logic is somewhat deeper, but I will refrain from repeating myself again. Jehochman ^Talk 01:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E is invalid as there were several events included in the article. Ty 03:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist at AfD for the full 7 days. The critical procedural error Jehochman made was to cut short two AfDs after less than a day without compelling reason to do so. If there is a policy-based reason to delete the article, such as WP:BLP, its validity can be assessed better after a full AfD discussion. Jehochman, being clearly involved by now, should refrain from taking further administrative actions regarding this article.  Sandstein  04:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The compelling reason is that the biography was clearly not notable; the first AfD was unanimous. Subsequently, a few people appear to have used the bio as a platform for maligning the subject who was a very prominent Wikipedia editor, User: Sam Blacketer. That sort of thing should not be tolerated. Letting people take pot shots at a living person for 7 days is a very poor idea. You'll notice that a few clueful people supported my action, including several administrators and an arbitrator. I'm not out on a branch by myself here. Keep in mind that policy is descriptive, not normative. Common sense trumps bureaucracy. Jehochman ^Talk 05:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where policy tells us that we must or must not do something (such as not create unsourced BLPs), and where we block people for not following it, it is indeed normative. Although the idea is not necessarily a bad one, current deletion policy does not provide for the possibility to cut short AfDs just because they concern BLPs or Wikipedians. I doubt that one could obtain consensus for such a change when we have just extended the duration of AfDs from 5 to 7 days. And is it really necessary to resort to appeals to authority here?  Sandstein  05:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just want to point out that the fact Boothroyd=Sam the ex-Arb=Fys had zero to do with my AFD nomination; I saw a BLP I thought was non-notable; I'm reconsidering that based on the sourcing here and actually was considering a userpage draft based on the new sourcing. Politicians are by their nature 'public', and choose to be so, so privacy concerns fall away. Also, I am 1000000% opposed to any BLP article that is in fact an editor here getting ***ANY*** special dispensation, consideration, or action, that any other BLP would not get, full stop. We have are required to eat our own dogfood, and any special action or dispensation for any BLP subject that would be based on their status as Wikipedians would be considered abusive. We are not more special than other BLPs, and I hope your deletions/touching of the AFDs was not based on the fact that Boothroyd is our Sam Blacketer. rootology (C)(T) 12:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rootology, I generally agree with you when you say editors here should get no special treatment. I would especially agree if you mean that editors here are treated neither better nor worse. It is a very slippery slope if we start writing articles about editors for their hijinx on Wikipedia. One reason I stepped up on this issue was that I'm not friendly with Sam Blacketer. If he wanted a favor, I would be the wrong person to ask. For the avoidance of doubt, nobody asked me to look at this matter. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist at AFD as neither AFD was allowed to run for anything like a full period. Given that there are reasonable (to my mind) objections to these deletions this should go back to AFD where I have no doubt that such an AFD would produce a large community response. Let the community decide in a full AFD whether an article is merited or not. Davewild (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion per zomg scary scary BLP factor. Gurch (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per WP:BLP and Durova. لennavecia 16:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Durova, WP:BLP policy, and all above. — Ched :  ?  16:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. There is not enough here to warrant an article outside of the article in the Register, and that is far too self-referential to justify the article. I took a look at the last version of the article prior to its deletion, and it's pure venom. Outside of a single marginally notable incident, the entire article was built around the subject's activities on Wikipedia. WP:SELFREF is the appropriate guideline here; this section is pretty clear about how Wikipedia is is to be discussed in articles, and his editing on Wikipedia has nothing to do with his public life. We have articles on other BLPs on people who have edited the project, and normally there is no discussion of their work on Wikipedia unless it is a significant chunk of their real-world notability. There is no indication that this is the case. Horologium (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]