- Mimi Macpherson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The closing of this afd was against consensus with by a ratio in excess of 2:1[1].Specifically those expressing keep opinions(17/28) listing sources that establish notability for multiple reason over an extend time period, where as those expressing delete(8/26) focused on one portion of the subjects life that occured and a direct request to Jimbo for the article to be deleted. After the discussion I ask the closing admin Could please explain what further information is necessary to ensure that the article can be re-created[2] the response was the closure was discretionary closure[3] and that it's best reviewed at DRV. Further discussion occured with a poor faith claim of canvassing for a drv occuring because "australian editors" where questioning the closure at[4], hence my delay in raising this at DRV now and not two weeks ago Gnangarra 04:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- closing admin advised of this discussion Gnangarra 05:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the entire article history appears to have been oversighted. That should pretty well curtail a specific and substantial discussion here. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Struck since the title has been fixed. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- note:Spelling error on my part the article has not been oversighted. Gnangarra 05:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, reading through the AfD discussion, I'm siding with DGG, Jimbo, and the closing admin and endorsing the close. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I usually stay out of DRV's over my decisions, but the history is still there, at a different capitalisation, see Mimi Macpherson (sorry, admins only.) Courcelles (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Thankfully I saw the article before it was deleted. I would have preferred this article get kept. I stand firmly behind my keep !vote even taking into account the request from the subject of the article. But our deletion guidelines clearly afford discretion to administrators to give weight to a request from the article's subject - indeed whatever weight the closer thinks to be proper. DRV shouldn't interfere with the proper exercise of discretion. In any other circumstances, this was a clear keep outcome: numbers, strength of argument, etc. all tended that way. That meant this closure was pushing the boundaries of discretion, but I cannot say the discretion was exceeded. Notability was ambiguous; there was a clear request from the article's subject; the closer gave significant weight to that, as he or she was entitled to do. As an aside regarding the comments about this debate being unduly affected by Australian input: us Australians might by and large be descended from thieves and prostitutes but we can and do think differently from each other.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The close was made within the discretion available to the closing administrator and in line with deletion policy. While there may have been a numerical advantage to those making the "keep" argument, in my opinion AfD is more than a mere counting of votes - the weight of argument needs to be considered as well. In my (admittedly biased) opinion, the argument for deletion was quite strong, even before taking into account the discretionary weighting given to a request for a living subject. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep I understand and appreciate the idea of a no-consensus close to delete of a marginally notable BLP, but I feel this really stretched the watermark too far into "notable" territory by our own notability guidelines. I fear this is a precedent. My feeling is that the guidelines need to be tweaked to allow such an article to be deleted, and that leaving this as discretionary leaves wikipedia wide open to manipulation by people outside the editing community. My idea would be some modification to General Notability Guidelines for people notable by appearance in secondary sources but arguably not for anything encyclopedic that there is some scope for deletion (need to brainstorm it), but that as it stands I am not happy with the process. Outright deletion struck me as overkill to prevent article imbalance or institution of the problematic material. We have finer policies (semiprotection, reliable sourcing and undue weight all of which can deal with this issue) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep. This close makes a mockery of the supposed system of having consensus on deletion decisions; it takes us closer to a position where what really matters is not what anyone who posted their feedback argues, but what the closing administrator would have voted. Rebecca (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted, which is not quite the same thing as "endorse". I have a great deal of sympathy with Courcelles on how much weight to give to an article subject's request for deletion on a marginally-notable BLP, and I'm pleased that the article was deleted, which I see as a correct result. However, Rebecca's point (above) is very close to the mark: what's the point of having a discussion if the closer disregards what's said and agreed? I do fear that Courcelles may have stretched the closer's discretion beyond its legitimate limits in order to achieve this outcome and I'm not comfortable with using the word "endorse".—S Marshall T/C 08:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The discussion was not pointless. The discussion was an opportunity for editors to put an argument that has some consensus and is strong enough to outweigh the presumption in favour of the subject's wishes. Without wanting to put words in Courcelles' mouth, in this case he.she obviously did not think the evidence at the discussion outweighed this general presumption. This won't always apply to every deletion request made by a BLP of course. I can think of many cases (former parliamentarians, convicted mass murderers, CEOs of major global firms etc.) where I could see a strong argument for retention being made at an AfD that would outweigh the general presumption in favour in the subjects wishes. In this case, the subject was a marginally notable person, who is no longer a public figure, and was best known for her familial relations, so the closing editor gave her wishes more weight than the weak consensus to keep at the AfD. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question/Request Would it be possible to postpone this DRV for a couple of weeks. My discussion with the subject of the article about the possibilities of the article continue, and she has asked for some time to think about it and will get back to me soon. As you can imagine if you google her name, the bulk of what is on the Internet and easily accessible to her is negative to the point of offense, and I made the case to her that a solid Wikipedia entry on her - if such can be created - could be beneficial. I would like the opportunity to explore further with her to learn more about what quality non-tabloid sources, possibly from pre-Internet days, could be found. If nothing more useful could be found than what existed at time of deletion, I would still support deletion. Serious efforts were made to improve the article, and it was significantly improved, but it still amounted to nothing more than a string of non-notable events which would not have been in the press save for her sister. I think more time, before a definitive discussion is held, would be useful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per all endorsers above, Courcelles made a tough call within BLP guidelines, even some who wanted to keep the article are supporting him. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep: The closing statement used the split in opinion between editors who said she is notable to editors who said she is not notable, to argue that her notability was ambiguous. The closing statement used this to justify deletion, combined with the subject's request. It was erroneous to use the split in votes to say her notability could not be defined. Instead, her notability should have been determined according to Wikipedia:Notability guidelines, with reasons given as to how it was applied according to those notability guidelines. In this case, Mimi McPherson is a household name in Australia (ask any Australian), and is a high-profile figure, and ticks every box in the Notability guidelines.--Lester 11:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Continually asserting that "McPherson (sic) is a household name in Australia" does not make that any more true. You need to provide evidence other than your say-so and simply saying "Ask any Australian" isn't any better. I am an Australian (last time I checked at least) and I am not convinced she was ever a household name and she certainly wouldn't be one now. Regardless, my opinion (and yours) does not add up to actual evidence. -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per longstanding belief that non-notable or borderline BLPs should be deleted upon reasonable request from the subject. It's particularly odious once a harmful BLP has been deleted to keep trying to bring it back against the subject's wishes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Somewhat agree, but I am sure the DRV initiator was acting in good faith. I wonder if Jimbo explained to the subject that the deletion process would involve multiple editors pouring over her life and casting judgements in a range of forums for a period of a month or more with the final results archived for posterity ... -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I brought this to DRV in good faith I believe the subject meets WP:Notability and thats its not marginal in any way shape or form. I was part of the initial m:BLP Task Force, I have been an OTRS agent for a couple of years and have alot of experience with cleaning up or deleting BLP that are marginal. I'm not here to drag this person through all the hoops I can find to cause any harm to the subject. My reason is because this closure has significantly shifted the bar on what is notable, BLP's do no harm and the discretionary actions of admins such a shift needs to be question especially as there has been no community discussion on the change. Gnangarra 15:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "BLP's do no harm", huh? Well, that's certainly an interesting statement. Perhaps you'd care to explain just how harmless they are to Ms. Macpherson... and when you're done with that, I believe there's a Mr. Seigenthaler who'd likely find your position on the subject rather intriguing as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could explain how an article adds in any way to the harm done by the existing news stories? Hobit (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Hobit, we're not responsible for any harm done by existing news stories. But we are responsible for any harm done by a Wikipedia article. And the big deal about this is that a conventional news source is accountable for harm because it can be sued. A Wikipedia editor, more than likely, can't (usefully) be sued. So we have a situation in which we're responsible for things that we can't be held accountable for, and that's not really okay at all. But given that that is the situation it puts a huge onus on Wikipedians to do no harm. (And incidentally that's also why I choose to edit under my real name, with my date of birth and location on display: I choose to be personally accountable for what I do.)—S Marshall T/C 11:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, in any case we couldn't (successfully) be sued for repeating a true statement (the sex tape exists) let alone citing other sources who say it. So immunity to a lawsuit in this case isn't relevant. The relevant question is if we have a responsibility to take down a page of someone who requests it for whatever reason. And I think the answer has to be no. The bar we've chosen is that a largely private person who is otherwise boarder line notable should have the right to have their page taken down, and that's something I agree with fully. I think we'd agree we'd not take down a page on Hillary Clinton just because she asked. So where is the line? To me, someone who is barely notable, per WP:N, is someone who has only a handful of RSes about them. That is how we define notability, so it must be how we define "boarder line" notability. The only real question, per our policies, is if she is past that point. I'd say she clearly is given the massive number of sources about her. Other folks are arguing that "well she never really did anything, she's just related to someone important". Well, A) I think that's pretty insulting and B) I think it doesn't matter why she got the opportunity to do all she did, she did those things and people covered it -- in depth and in numerous places. Keep in mind this includes winning a non-trivial award and hosting a nationally broadcast TV show. The next question is "why do our policies single out those that are boarder line notable"? And the answer is that A) we'd look silly (and be less useful) not having an article on Hillary Clinton and B) we assume someone who _is_ quite notable will have all that material out there to be found in any case. A quick web search turns up a massive number of hits for the tape including copies of it. We aren't adding a drop to that rainfall, and that's exactly why we don't delete articles of people by request unless they were boarder line to begin with. Hobit (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep. Whilst I understand the decision to default to keep in relation to BLPs of marginal notability, I think that the notability of the subject in this case was proven to be beyond 'marginal'. It was a tough AfD to close, but I think the closing admin made the wrong choice here. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Delete Per DGG's original comment. What has Mimi done that is notable (as supported by reliable sources.) Her fame is established, her notability isn't. In originally supporting delete, I checked several pages of google looking for sources describing notability, looked at the sources cited in the article some of which were questionable sources, none of which describes notability, looked at sources describing notable envrionmentalists in the world and in Australia, she wasn't listed there, and asked editors supporting keep to bring sources thtat establish notability to the discussion. No new sources appeared. While Mimi may have accomplished things which were commendable, and was press worthy for things that weren't, none of it is per Wikipedia notable. If new sources come to light establishing notability, and the article is improved, I'd be happy to endorse keep.(olive (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- comment your request for more sources was answered by User:Lester in the afd who linked to a google search which identified 610 articles in the Sydney Morning Herald that had coverage of Mimi, and 279 News limited articles. Both of these are unquestionably reliable sources, as is the Aunty who has sort her opinion for the 7:30 report and covered her in Australian Story along with mirade of other citations in the afd after your comment. as for what she has done thats notable try TV Presenter, Radio Personality, Business Women of the Year but all of this was argued in the afd and sourced in the article. Put simply by WP:GNG says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article ....significant coverage 610 articles over 15 years in the SMH alone
 Y. reliable sources --SMH,ABC Y, independent of the subject[5] Y. Gnangarra 14:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/reply I didn't request more sources, I requested reliable sources that established notability, of which there are none so far. There are differences between events which are significant in and to a life, and establishing the notability of that life per Wikipedia to begin with. Coverage isn't notability. DUI, bankruptcy, and unfortunate video tapes would probably not have been mentioned had not the person already been aligned with a famous person. What glues the events of this life together in terms of the press is the connection, not the events themselves. For example claims to be a notable environmentalist are not supported by lists of notable environmentalists in the world or even in Australia. Whether a string of events and professions in a person's life create notability is debatable, and certainly the closing admin. acted in the best way possible by noting the border line instance of notability and defaulting to protect the subject of the BPL. "Do no harm"(olive (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Overturn to keep. "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." The important thing to note is that she's not "relatively unknown" or a "non-public figure." So what if she's Elle Macpherson's sister? The article was about her business career (and getting awards for it), conservation work, and her modelling career. She is definitely a public person, see her description of herself on MySpace: "Mimi Macpherson; award winning businesswoman,and Environmentalist. Mimi’s success and popularity had stemmed from being a pioneer in the Tourism and Whale Watching Industry in Hervey Bay at the tender age 21."[6] She's hardly shying away from publicity. Setting this precedent of deleting biographies if the subject complains to Jimbo if things like drink-driving convictions or bankruptcies are mentioned risks a cull or whitewashing of biographies. Invalid deletion arguments included things like "to be notable a person has to do something notable", which is a total fiction, and WP:BLP1E was thrown into the mix with no basis whatsoever! What is this "one event" that she is supposed to be only known for? Her conservation work? Her business career? Her modelling? Her radio work? Her TV work? (I think that's five things, though my maths might be shaky here). The closing admin asserted that it had been shown in the discussion that she is "at best, borderline notable", but the only way to conclude that would be by a biased reading of the debate. Most participants asserted with strong evidence that she is clearly notable. The article was mostly neutral and well sourced, though I would support removing the mention of the alleged sex tape, as we're not a gossip site. Fences&Windows 16:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn in no way is she non-notable or "boarder-line" non-notable. Per WP:N she's clearly notable. If you take DGG's argument that she has to have done something "notable" I'd argue that hosting a TV show is certainly that, as are her efforts in whaling. That she was involved in a sex tape (people have sex, who knew?) and is closely related to a well-known person (who I have no clue about) is irrelevant. Clearly if there were no consensus in the discussion we should delete the article per policy. But that was a keep discussion both by number and even more so by strength of argument. The delete case is _really_ weak here. To get to that result you'd have to A) ignore our own guidelines B) believe that the article couldn't be fixed. I don't see it. Hobit (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore to userspace No doubt this would not be deleted at MfD, as the !votes were substantially to Keep/Userfy/Merge. Principle of "least harm" dictates userfication at this point. Collect (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse As I said at the AfD, to be notable a person must do something notable. The accidents of sourcing relatives of celebrities is not notability: the GNG when applied blindly gives absurd results in both directions. She is not notable in any of the mini-careers. Notability is not a popularity contest. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This verges on the ludicrous. She was the host of a TV show (more than one if I understand correctly) and won an award for how well she ran a company. Both saw significant coverage. I actually find it insulting (to her) that you somehow claim that either A) none of those were significant (the media disagrees which is how we normally settle these things) or B) she only was as successful as she was because of who her sister is. If you're going to claim the second one I'd really like evidence of that. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - This person is, at best, marginally notable. There are valid arguments for and against notability, but it is not a slam dunk. Add in the fact that the subject of the article has gone through the trouble of contacting one of the founders of WP in an attempt to get the article deleted, and it's clear to see that this close was absolutely correct. WP has no need for articles on marginally notable people, especially when those articles are doing harm to them. SnottyWong spout 21:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to have all sorts of claims to notability, not the least of which is a massive number of articles on her (how we define notability in these parts). Could you explain why this isn't a slam dunk for notability? I mean host of a TV show would likely be a slam dunk by itself given any coverage in a RS (of which there is plenty). Award winning business person (with coverage of said award) would certainly be enough. Environmentalist work and coverage there of would be enough. All of them? That's a slam dunk. What are you seeing that makes you think otherwise? Hobit (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep. The guideline refers specifically to "relatively unknown, low-profile" figures. Whatever one may think of the subject's notability, the AfD had clearly established that she was not, by any stretch of the imagination, "relatively unknown". As such the deletion of this article, while done in good faith, was against what consensus there was and imposes an unwelcome precedent on AfDs, where the administrator's closing is, after all, supposed to reflect what the community has decided. Frickeg (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure, this was an excellent close, well thought-out and based on policy and consensus. Some of the above arguments purport that the close was ‘against consensus’ apparently determined by a ‘2:1 ratio vote’, but Wikipedia is not a democracy, we don’t just count up the votes and whoever has the most wins. Consensus fully supports the deletion. The closing admin also acted well within discretionary boundaries when considering Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Biographies_of_living_people, which states: "When closing an AfD about a living person whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. The degree of weight given to such a request is left to the admin's discretion.” At best, the subject’s notability is marginal or borderline; none of the ‘keep’ arguments meet WP:BIO requirements, virtually all of them merely cite how ‘popular’ or ‘famous’ she is in Australia – this is not Notability and fails WP:BIO. Clearly, the subject’s notability is ‘ambiguous’ at best, and the closing administrator correctly took into account the subject’s request that it be deleted. Good close. As for the ‘canvassing’ issue, see WP:DUCK. Dreadstar ☥ 01:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, the arguments that she has extensive coverage in the media (and I do mean extensive, we're talking 100s of articles that at least mention her and many (10s?) solely about her) means she meets WP:BIO with flying colors. Sure few keep !votes said much about meeting WP:BIO because no one felt she didn't. The only questions were WP:BLP1E and what happens when a person requests deletion. The keep arguments also didn't argue she met WP:V, but that's because there was no claim she didn't. Should it be closed as delete because no one argued she met WP:V? Hobit (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you honestly think that the discussion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Macpherson constitutes canvassing, I suggest actually reading WP:CANVASS, not just waving it around in an attempt to de legitimise those who disagree with you. It is entirely legitimate (and in my view, positively beneficial) to notify groups/projects about discussions that may be of interest to them. The rest of the discussion was more about the meta-issue of BLPs. But, hey, feel free to smear ... -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't the supposed canvassing done by someone who wanted it deleted? While I'm strongly on the keep side, I don't think there was a canvassing problem there per se. The announcement was fairly neutral though later discussion leaned pretty hard toward delete. Assuming Nick-D and Mattinbgn didn't set this up ahead of time (and I can't imagine they did) I don't see what was wrong with informing a project relevant to the discussion. I might prefer discussion not happen in that notification, but good luck on that one. Hobit (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to discuss the canvassing issue, which was cited (as far as I can see) solely as a reason for the delay in the nomination and which no one else has felt the need to bring up. However, the statement "consensus fully supports the deletion" is demonstrably false and requires rebuttal. I think we can all agree that there was no true consensus at the AfD, but there is clearly an argument that consensus leant towards keep - and numbers are only one of many factors indicating this, as I'm sure anyone who reads the AfD can see (including, I note, several editors who supported deletion). Frickeg (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do it for you then Frickeg. I notified the editor who accused you of canvassing that it was an extremely bad faith accusation and that he should redact his accusation. He/she's done nothing. Very poor form from a long-time admin.The-Pope (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep. Deleted against consensus, and she clearly meets notability guidelines. Within Australia, she is widely known and the subject of much coverage in her own right. There may be BLP issues to resolve if the article is rightfully restored, but those are not grounds for deleting the article for a notable personality. StuartH (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep. This sets an unacceptable precedent. She was clearly notable before the sex tape. This is established by the segment about her on Australian Story, an independent reliable source; by her work in the media; by her business awards; and by her numerous media mentions. The sex tape has added to that: a search on Google Books and Google Scholar reveals numerous academic discourses discussing the sex tape alone. We don't delete articles on notable people just because they ask nicely. Hesperian 06:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion but allow recreation without BLP violations. Clearly she doesn't fall afoul of BLP1E, and she has enough credits to her name that we can have an article. Start over with something neutral and keep it neutral. AniMate 06:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep. Should have been closed as "no consensus - keep". Notability clearly established through multiple references over many years across numerous fields of endeavour. If reference to an "explicit video" bothers the subject then there are other, more effective ways to deal with this rather than deletion of a worthy article. WWGB (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, just to clarify my eariler comment "consensus fully supports the deletion" means there was no consensus to keep. This is contrary to the false claims that the article was "deleted against consensus". It was not deleted against consensus; consensus supported the closer's decision. Dreadstar ☥ 18:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to Keep - Notability is not ambiguous as the closing admin claimed in the opening of their statement. Consensus to keep with most "keep" voters citing significant coverage from reliable sources should not have been ignored. WP:BLP1E, which states it is meant for "low profile" individuals," does not apply as this person willingly has not been private and even appeared in a national television show.--Oakshade (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn: The closing admin cites the deletion criteria for when there is "living person whose notability is ambiguous". However, in this case, I believe that notability is not ambiguous - notability under the General Notability Guidelines was easily established. If this deletion is allowed to stand, it makes a mockery of our "consensus based approach" and all that. Buddy431 (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep Whilst sometimes I agree that popularity does not equal notability, for people, especially "celebrity" people such as TV hosts and the like, I think popularity does equal notability. It is therefore interesting (and unmentioned to date, AFAIK), that Mimi ranked in the top 500 Australian viewed articles in Jan 2010[7] (ahead of a current NBA player and the lead singer of one of Australia's biggest bands, dropping to top 800 in May[8]. This puts her in the top 250 viewed articles about Australian people. This, coupled with the extensive coverage in reliable sources means that the against the consensus closure to delete was incorrect. Her notability isn't borderline or dubious (at least to Australians), so the default to delete was incorrect. You can bet that any BLP issues will be kept to a minimum as I'm sure most of the very experienced Aussie editors who have !voted keep in the AfD or above will keep a close eye on the article from now on.The-Pope (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep I actually sympathise with the closing admin's position, but I think this particular example was the wrong case to apply it. This was a person whose independent notability was not in question. Aside from this, the consensus was clear to keep amongst those who had contributed. Quite frankly, I think sometimes there is a headlong rush to delete when observing Wikipedia's rules on the article's content and then putting the thing on protect/flagged revisions/whatever is fashionable now is a better way to do things. Orderinchaos 09:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, as above -- good solution, wrong problem. I really haven't any feelings either way about the article, but my own reading of the the deletion discussion did not bring me to the same conclusion as the closer. The notability of the subject for our purposes was clearly and sufficiently established in that discussion. As seriously as we should take Ms Mcphearson's requests, so long as the article is adhering to the policies we have, we can only do so much without treading a path of whitewashing -- which is where I fear this decision takes us. Perhaps those who desire deletion would do better to spend their efforts achieving more restrictive/prescriptive notability guidelines.— cj | talk 14:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to keep. I don't think there's any legitimate way to dispute that the subject satisfies the GNG. That said, there's no disputing that this article has been problematic for quite some time (see [9]). The issues involved are symptomatic of a much broader problem: that too many "celebrity" bios are bulked out with nonencyclopedic content: "dating" histories, traffic court reports, trivial comments made in interviews, gossip, accounts of embarassing but insignificant public behavior, ad nauseam. Rather than occasionally deleting articles where the unencyclopedic content overwhelms the legitimate and distresses the article subject, the response here should be to more rigorously excludes such worthless content from articles and, if necessary, limit the editing privileges of editors who insist on inserting such content in violation of the principles underlying WP:BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse my own close. I normally avoid my own DRVs like they were the plague, but this one, I feel compelled to make a last minute comment in. In the absence of the subject's request, this close would be a textbook no consensus- while there is a majority of !votes to keep- there are legitimate and significant policy-based delete votes to press this one into no consensus, default to keep. Adding the subject's request- gives the closer- me in this case- discretion to default to delete under the deletion policy that we have. A no consensus- even a outright keep close- I would have been willing to endorse as well- there will never be any easy cut and dry answers when policy gives discretion and multiple, equally valid results could have been arrived at. I will always give a lot of credence to a subject in distress who simply wants out- and will make no apology for doing so. Not a blind adherence- no- no amount of pleading from him would ever get Tony Blair deleted. A relatively low-profile person? The first tenant of BLP is do no harm. Courcelles (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|