Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 22

22 August 2015

Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

Jeffrey Allen Sinclair (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There is no clear consensus to delete. While this is not a vote-count, you had 8 editors arguing to keep and 6 arguing for deletion. The main argument given for deletion was WP:BLP1E, followed by not notable. On the keep side, you had editors who pointed at the essay WP:SOLDIER, but also pointed as sound policy reasons under notability that were not addressed nor considered by the closing admin. Sinclair is one of just a few generals who have been court-martialed in the last 60 years. There were reliable sources covering other portions of his life, as a battalion commander in combat, as a brigade commander in combat. These policy based arguments were not considered by the closing admin, even though they directly rebutted statements made by those arguing for deleting the article. Next, it is an improper analysis of BLP1E which requires all three of the criteria be met. Sinclair does not meet any of the criteria listed, he is covered by WP:RS outside of the one event, as a general, he is not a low-profile individual, and the event was both significant and Sinclair's role was significant. This should be overturned on policy grounds. GregJackP Boomer! 00:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I have notified all of the participants of the AfD. GregJackP Boomer! 00:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse different reasons were given. But I accept the closer's conclusion that the marginal notability of this Brigadier General with respect to other matters than the events leading to his demotion and resignation after allegations of misconduct (his plea of guilty to minor violations was accepted) did not overweight the BLP concern regarding our coverage of minor crimes. (There were also accusations of major crimes, but he was not convicted of them--had he been, I would have probably supported keeping the article.) DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse' as nominator, without prejudice against covering this event within the wider context and potentially with a redirect. BLP1E is there for ea reason. Guy (Help!) 00:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Insufficient reason to reverse That a closer might have reached a different conclusion is not, in itself, sufficient to overturn the close. This does mean that the person is specifically "not notable" but that the article had significant problems with the BLP dwelling on material which consisted of contentious claims falling under WP:BLPCRIME, where the value of having the BLP was outweighed by its problems. Collect (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - WP:NOTSCANDAL (this is policy, not an essay like WP:SOLDIER) says "Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." Claiming he was a flag officer with inherent notability was only a pretext to wedge in a BLP about an adulterous affair. If he had been court-martialed for any military short-comings, he would be eminently notable, but that's not the case here. Kraxler (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse. I never watched the deleted page and I did not participate in the AfD, but my watchlist includes the talk pages of some of the editors who were notified of this DRV, so I decided to give an uninvolved view. I think that the closing statement is correct about participants being roughly divided between keeping per WP:SOLDIER and deleting per WP:BLP1E. (I've looked for sources about the subject, and the "one event" appears to have been court-martial for crimes, rather than military distinction, so SOLDIER appears only to apply marginally.) I think that the strong importance that the community places on WP:BLP indicates that the close was correct in weighing BLP1E above SOLDIER or the numbers of !votes cast in the AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (summoned by bot) - Cwobeel (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse closure was reasonable, based on the relevant policies. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Chad White

Chad White (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

It is an international male model. This article was excluded for rapid elimination, for not being a high-profile person. I know that in 2007 (when the page was deleted), there were so many outside sources about it. But today, after many years, you can do an article to reliable sources, it has profile in known fashion pages. My request is, if you can not restore the page, at least unprotect the item so it can be edited in the future. Thanks. Brenhunk (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse previously deleted article was so over-the-top and silly that it sounded like a dating-site profile (sample quote: "...unswervingly patient, tireless in his work, kind, fun to be with..."). Safe to say it was neither an encyclopedic article nor how a professional would want to present themselves, and restoring it would not be wise. Regarding a potential new article, I'd suggest posting the substantial coverage in idependent reliable sources that you'd use as the basis for a new article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply. I agree with your position. I did not know how the article was written before disposal. If so, the elimination was deserved. But the substance in question is to give a new possibility of the article be re-created, which is not possible to be protected. Brenhunk (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse The speedy deletion was absolutely justified, and any admin who failed to delete it would have been acting in a quite unusual manner. If he is notable now, a draft can be written for checking & unprotected if it seems that he would pass afd. Given the availability of Draft space, we need not remove protection simply on the assertion that an article could possibly be written. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn when using "essays" it is common practice to ignore the GNG and notability is presumed, ie schools. The community discussed those criteria and set those so this is more of a IAR and personal opinion close then was consensus. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)