Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 7

Levi Johnston | Moved to Afd by deleting Admin.

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

The article was speedy deleted by a [somewhat] involved admin. KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is extensively involved in the Sara Palin topic. There is a controversy on Wikipedia over whether Levi Johnston is notable. He has appeared in primetime TV interviews recently, so his notability is open to question. KillerChihuahua reasons for deleting the article included BLP and an XfD of redirect opened back in March which resulted in a deletion. However he hasn't articulated a clear BLP violation and he recreated the redirect despite the XfD. The article should be restored and taken to AfD. Will Beback talk 20:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-examined the Rfd; Will is correct that consensus was to delete; although mention was made of a redir to Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy, this did not have consensus. I have therefore corrected my error and deleted the Redir. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will, can you please undelete this article so editors can see the topic in question? Ikip (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel comfortable undeleting the article, at least until KC explains why it was deleted. There is a prohibition against restoring deleted BLPs that contain policy violations, but we haven't heard whether or not KC believes the article contained any such violations. I suggest you ask KC. Will Beback talk 03:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one has bothered to ask me, but as the deleting admin (who did not anticipate this kind of controversy) I would be happy to undelete so the article can be placed at Afd, or undelete to userspace during this Drv. Do you wish that, and which? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KC, as the deleting admin would you please undelete the article so that it may be be placed at Afd? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: I am not in any way "involved" - I do not edit the Sarah Palin article. I am enforcer of the article probation on that article. Will, I would appreciate it if you would strike your inaccurate and hostile characterization of me as biased in this matter, as it smacks of personal attack. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not familiar with the job description of "enforcer", but I'd be surprised if it includes free reign to delete articles outside of process. Deletion of a redirect is not comparable to the deletion of a properly sourced article, so I don't see how that can be used as a sufficient cause. Is there a reason why this article shouldn't go to AfD? Will Beback talk 20:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "I'm not faimiliar with the job description of "enforcer", but I'd be surprised if it includes free reign to delete articles outside of process."? Will, try to keep your personal hostility of me off this Drv. Your desire to attack me and smear me has no place here; this is inappropriate. I will not respond further to your blatant attacks, and suggest you strike or remove them. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is it a personal attack to say that you are involved in this topic? That's a much lower threshold than I've ever seen before. The assertion that I have a desire to attack you fails to AGF. This response shows a lack of dispassion. All the more reason to bring this to AfD to let uninvolved editors weigh in. Will Beback talk 20:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Will, your failure to understand that admins properly carrying out duties on an article talk page are not "involved" and that the process was correctly followed has led you to a personal attack and a failure to assume good faith. Treat this on its merits and present evidence of notability, if any, don't try escalating this by what look like smear techniques. . . dave souza, talk 23:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, for people unfamilar with the circumstances here, the alleged notability of Levi Johnston is based on the fact that he is the ex-fiance of Bristol Palin. Bristol Palin's alleged notability is based on being a child of Sarah Palin. There is currently no article for Bristol Palin.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability also derives from appearances on TV and from articles written about him and his family. But that's a matter which should be discussed at AFD. Will Beback talk 20:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to here any policy based reasons why this article shouldn't go to AfD. I don't think KillerC was really basing the deletion on BLP, but more on their feeling that Johnston is non-notable. They may be right, but that's for AfD to decide. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear me, are you accusing me of lying? On what basis? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the offense. You said it was against BLP, then gave a longer reasoning about it being non-notable. I figured that was the one you were going by. I now see your further comments on your talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apology happily accepted - the discussion has been on three pages so far, I'm not surprised there is a little confusion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and take to AfD This is not a clear cut case, and things have changed since the last XfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is Drv, the correct venue for a deleted page. Afd is for existing pages, which this is not. Suggest if you feel deletion should be overturned, and an article or redirect created, state which and your reasoning. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) I think the article should be undeleted and taken to AfD. The reason is that his notability has increased since the RfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - And, as I look at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 13 more closely, the Levi Johnston redirect was mostly deleted because the target article Sarah Pailin didn't mention him and the editors of that page didn't want him mentioned there. So that situation is no longer relevant, either, since he had a fully referenced article about him before this latest deletion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's the question here? If the article was deleted, what was the criterion under which it was deleted? It seems like I'm coming in from the middle of the conversation, even though I've read the entire thread upon to this point. Ray^Talk 20:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the previous conversation is at User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Levi_Johnston and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 13. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catching up and continue discussion above

An AFD and RFD are two very different things. Even so I think the article about "levy Johnson" has some merit in its notability I have no strong feelings about this (article) but I have "strong feelings" when an (at least partially) involved admin makes a bold move by deleting it and not check and hand such decision to another uninvolved admin. I sense some abuse even so I assume food faith and give the editor the doubt of "not guilty until proven guilt" and would like to see his/her bold move to be confirmed or rejected by another (completely uninvolved) admin. I think KillerChihuahua did a good job at Sarah Palin's page so far but might went over the top by this. And also, citing an (over a week old) RFD as reason for deletion doesn't seem right to me at all. Instead, the editor should and could've started a legitimate AFD about the redirect that involved into an article. Oh, and to decide to make it a "speedy" makes it even more questionable and about KillerChihuahua's statement above not being evolved at all, again (as I stated above), S/he is partially involved no matter how good of a job s/he did handling the Palin main article and no, this is not meant at all as an attack at all. I'm just giving my opinion on the deletion (which might even not survive a regular AFD but this is not the point). —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk • contribs)

Overturn The article should be restored - there were 20 reliable sources in the article, representing an 8 month period detailing various events of which Levi is the subject. Many of these reliable sources were written AFTER the RFD - this was clearly noted in the article that was deleted. If other editors feel thatthe subject's notability is questionable, then it should be taken to AfD - per nom and Peregrine Fisher. Otherwise the deletion needs to be overturned and the article restored. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and allow it to go to AFD. Have no interest in the various iterations of alaksan trailer trash but this fellow and his family have been the subject of lots of coverage in reliable sources and this encyclopedia is filled with articles on fictional characters that have never been covered by any reliable sources. This seems odd to me. A non BLP-violating article is more than theoretically possible here. He's not a minor, and he has sought out publicity. Take him to AFD as that's the place to establish if consensus finds him sufficiently notable (the only grounds i can see that need to be determined for inclusion in this case).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold deletion of biography of a living person of little or no notability: at best someone who has appeared lately in a few news items about someone they have a relationship with, who in turn isn't personally notable, but her mother is a public figure. This is the page for presenting evidence that there is enough notability to justify undeletion, not a page for making spurious claims that an admin has become "involved" by correctly carrying out admin duties on a talk page. Such claims in no way warrant recreating any article where its notability is in serious doubt, and certainly not in the case of a BLP. . . dave souza, talk 23:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the page to decide if the subject is notable. This is the page to decide of the deletion was made according to policy. KC has said that he deleted the article under A7 of the speedy deletion criteria.[1] However that criterion says:
  - An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
- The article did make an assertion of notability so it is not a valid reason for a speedy deletion. Nor would G4 be appropriate, because the article was substantially different from the deleted redirect. So the deletion does not appear to have been made according to policy and it should be overturned. Whether the claim of notability is sufficient should be determined at AFD. Will Beback talk 23:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will, that's not what I said. I am going to respond to your inaccurate accusations and statements about me one more time, but please let this be the last time. I commented to you that the BLP was "speedyable", and was asked by another editor "Which SPEEDY thing did it match". I responded A7. At NO TIME did I ever state that was why I deleted the page. Please get your facts straight. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KC -- Not to make this more heated. But what is the speedy criteria under which this was deleted. If I understand correctly, you say that A7 was not the reason you deleted the page. Just so we're not talking past each other here, what was the criteria that you used? That would help us stay on track here I think.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KC - I apologize for getting that wrong. Please correct me and say which speedy deletion criteria you believe that this falls under. Will Beback talk 00:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KC - What was the criteria used for deletion? This has yet to be established. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original criteria of notability for deleting the article as a redirect still stand, as far as I've seen. Evidence of a real change in the situation is needed. . dave souza, talk 11:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect was once deleted because the target article didn't mention this name is the speedy deletion reason for this article? That doesn't make much sense and I hope you're wrong.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the target article had been subject to discussion of the name of this third party whose only claim to notability is that his girlfriend has a famous mother. The determination that his girlfriend / common law wife is non-notable applies even more so to him. I'm willing to review that when you produce sources mentioning him as notable in his own right, not the occasional news sources about Bristol. . dave souza, talk 17:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave -- I though AFD was the place for establishing notability? If I understand A7 would apply if there was a failure to assert some significance, which is defined as a lower threshold than notability. I can't look at the deleted article, but simply to assert something like the family feuding that he helped color political debate about palin (which it has -- whether this is "notable" is of course another question). If I look at a the yahoo news aggregagator for "Levi Johnston" [2] I find stories from the New York Daily News, USA Today, AP, LA Times, CBS news, etc... all in the past few days. Let it go to AFD and have the community decide if this passes the various notability guidelines.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen these all refer to one news story about an interview with the non-notable Bristol Palin. See my comment below. . dave souza, talk 11:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Uphold deletion KC has not been an active editor on the topic of Sarah Palin. The person is not notable under WP BLP standards, and the article was being used as a coatrack about Sarah Palin, which is evidenced clearly by the accusation that KC was involved in the Palin article. The article was also being used as a coatrack to introduce the exact birth date of the child, which was found not germane in the Palin article, and falls under protection of a minor on WP. And the existence of the article was being cited as a reason for more Palin coatrack articles, including one on Bristol Palin. If such is to be prevented, the sooner the better. And "appearing in TV interviews" has not been held to per se confer notability on anyone. Collect (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, again as some editor pointed out before, this thread is about the "one handed speedy" deletion and not about Johnson's notability to get his own article at WP. I even doubt that the deleted article would survive a regular AFD but that is in my opinion where it belongs. Besides, if it (the article) would fail there, there would be NO conversation like this here going on for at least quite a while. Gosh, let's have a regular AFD about this and decide it for good (at least for a while). Guess we have better things to do then spend our time on this.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as noted before, this is related to a notability discussion held in T:SP and thus that material is relevant here. And the fact that KC was not "involved" as was claimed is certainly also relevant. Lastly, we can certainl;y expect canvassing on the topic for an AfD, which would mean that this is the only venue where the original discussion is apt to be relevant. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request Can this page be userfied so that recent reliable sources may be expounded upon - especially since the article was speedy deleted while tagged underconstruction and in the process of being expanded? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question What was the criteria used for deletion? This has yet to be established. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect of an individual so non-notable that there's no need to mention his name on articles about the notable individual he relates to was fully valid, creating a new article with no evident further claim to fame clearly goes against that precedent. If he has an independent claim to fame, please set it out for discussion. . dave souza, talk 17:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion. It's clear that there are several of us who think the article should stay, so a full discussion via AfD is far more appropriate than a speedy. If the deletion stands, then at a minimum there should be a redirect. The prior discussion is not accurately characterized in this comment by KillerChihuahua: "consensus was to delete; although mention was made of a redir to Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy, this did not have consensus." What actually happened was that there were 10 editors who favored having a redirect (either to the Palin bio or to the "Image" article) and 6 who favored deletion. The 10 who wanted to keep a redirect included the original nominator, who wrote, on March 16, "Note, if the mention of Mr. Johnston in Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy appears likely to stick, then I support retargeting the redirect there rather than deleting." That mention has stuck. Furthermore, of the 6 editors favoring deletion, 5 of them expressly based their conclusion on the assertion that Johnston was not mentioned in the Palin bio, which was at that time the target article (see the comment above by Peregrine Fisher). Johnston is now mentioned in the image article, and the mention seems likely to stick, so it would be appropriate as a target for the redirect. Preferable, though, in light of his subsequently increased notability, would be to restore the article. JamesMLane t c 00:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy, send to AfD I'm not seeing a valid speedy rational but I'll fully admit I've not read anything beyond this DrV. In addition I suspect the subject of this article is notable. Hobit (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD. It's quite apparent to me that this is too contentious to speedy, and merits a full discussion; and whether or not KillerChihuahua is an "involved admin" in any factual sense, there's clearly a perception among some users that he's involved. That perception is important.
My personal position at AfD would be that this material should be deleted, but I think it matters how it's deleted.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion and list at AfD Speedy deletion is not for this case. At the very least, Levi Johnston is asserted to be important. And I'm sensitive to the BLP claims, but that's not decided -- there seems to be serious disagreement on that point, meriting a proper discussion at AfD. Ray^Talk 02:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: This is a pretty clear issue of WP:BLP; we're not a tabloid, and this falls under both BLP1E and presumption in favor of privacy. I think it's a reasonable application of WP:BLP, and one I believe is supported by policy and prior ArbCom decisions, to delete the article as KC has done. I guess it could go to AfD, but if I'm being totally honest, I've been completely underwhelmed with the general respect for BLP issued evinced in AfD discussions. MastCell ^Talk 03:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't fall under BLP1E, which states: 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 in original]. Aside from the issue of whether he's notable for only one event, the subject did not maintain a low profile but instead has sought publicity. Will Beback talk 22:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Concerning the low profile please see Johnston's April 2009 media blitz; on Larry King Live, the Tyra Banks Show, the Early Show, etc... Not a low profile by any interpretation. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: Per MastCell.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are good arguments. Ones I'd expect to hear at an AfD, but they don't really apply to this situation. I don't think 1E or 7A or whatever the reason for deletion (I'm still not sure) applies to an article created at the same name as a redirect which was deleted because there was not target for it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. The arguments would be strong ones at AfD, but here, WP:BLPDEL trumps them and I feel they should be disregarded. See my reply to Stifle below.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - There was no proper grounds for speedy deletion here and now with over eight months of very significant coverage, this kind of speedy deletion is outright disruptive.--Oakshade (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article. Routine news coverage of such things as tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. See WP:Tabloid. Am I missing something, or is the event in question that this guy impregnated the daughter of someone famous?[3]Ferrylodge (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) That's how it started. If it had ended there, there probably be much to debate. I started the article when I was watching the news and they were talking about this media blitz he's been on lately. I wanted more info, went to wiki and found a redirect that didn't lead to anything that covered it, so I started the article. He was just a small part of the election coverage, but has now become a media personality of a sort. - Peregrine Fisher (talk(contribs) 04:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm sure that was done in good faith, but he continues to be a small part of political coverage of the grannie of his child. The issue of whether Bristol Palin is notable has been properly tested, and she was found to have inadeqate notability to overturn BLP concerns. That applies even more so to her partner, though I'm open to seeing specific references otherwise. . dave souza, talk 17:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrylodge, while I would be happy to counter your argument about the inclusion of this topic in Wikipedia, that would be an AfD discussion (I've fallen into the AfD-talk in DRVs before and probably will again). This is about the validity of speedy deleting this article. --Oakshade (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on when a speedy delete is appropriate, but if it's ever appropriate in any instance, I would think that (not to put too fine a point on it) an article about a guy who screwed a gal who has a famous Mom would be such an instance.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY are for a small set of clearly defined situations, which, while this may seem like a no-brainer to you, actually requires a bit of thought and community input. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak overturn I suspect that another AfD will result in a deletion and we don't need to go through that process again given that that's almost certainly the correct result at this time given that the individual's notability is so tenuous: he happened to get pregnant the daughter of a notable individual. I would like another AfD to actually see what happens and I'm not a fan of out of process deletions. Note however, claims that KC was too involved to make this deletion are simply wrong; having done work with related articles doesn't mean one cannot make a deletion, and we are if anything more willing to let people make deletions when there is a BLP concern even if they might have some involvement(I'm not convinced should but the precedent in that regard is clear). If we do decide to endorse, then there should be a redirect put in this place since people will definitely be search for his name. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. WP:BLP applies, and trumps pretty much every other policy and relevant process. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With apologies to Stifle for flatly contradicting him, WP:BLP specifically says:
  "Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed. If the dispute centers around suitability of the page for inclusion – for example, if there are doubts as to notability or the subject has requested deletion – then this should be addressed at xFD rather than by summary deletion."
  The shortcut to the original text for this is WP:BLPDEL.
  Therefore, I feel Stifle's remark should be disregarded because it is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Our primary aim with BLPs is to do no harm. Mr. Johnston has been in the news due to the connection with Miss Palin, who in turn was connected to Mrs. Palin. The article we had really didn't do him any justice. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - How did it not "do him any justice"? Moreover, can you explain what harm is being done by such an article? JoshuaZ (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this DrV was openened on the spurious grounds that KC was "involved", and the more reasonable grounds that the procedural basis for speedy deletion does not allow for this situation. The article was deleted after discussion of its notability in the context of BLP standards, there have been a few more news items sincee, following (as far as I've seen) one interview of the non-notable Bristol Palin at which Levi Johnston also said a few words. If there's sufficient evidence to give a reasonable presumption of possible notability that evidence can be presented here, but recreating an article in order to delete it is WP:POINTy and a clear breach of BLP standards. So, if there's a good case for existence of the article, please show that here. . . dave souza, talk 11:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per MastCell and WP:BLP1E. Kelly ^hi! 12:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This far into a discussion and still - there has been no clear reason provided why this article fails BLP!!! The article clearly stated notability and contained 20 references from reliable sources of which Levi is the subject. Not just one, but many events over an 8 month period were in the process of being expounded on (while the article was tagged Underconstruction) and also while a discussion on constructing the article was ongoing on the talk page. The article was deleted because an admin didn't like it, that's not reason enough - thus Overturn remains the correct response to this flagrant out of process deletion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say overturn and send to AFD if I wasn't absolutely certain that the political aspect of this article would result in a massive flood of bovine fecal matter that would result in a no-consensus keep (or, quite possibly, a straight keep, depending on which side gets out the most vote). So, as MastCell points out above, endorse deletion per WP:IAR on the deleter's part - we're not a tabloid, we don't need an article for a guy whose 15 minutes are about up. Let him live his life without having to deal with an article that will almost certainly become a massive political dramafest. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article, as it was when speedy deleted, was not about his 15 minutes - which would of been his introduction to the world as a father to be by Sarah Palin on September 1, 2008. From this point on for 8 months there have been multiple events. The most recent is just from a 2 days ago, when both of them participated in two different well publicized interviews concerning abstinence. 8 months of publicity from reliable sources for mulitple events is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it goes to AFD and is deleted as it rightly should be once the inevitable seven days of dramaramarama are over then I'll apologize for encouraging admins to take steps like this to protect single-note people, especially teenagers, from having an outlet for people to politicize them. As it stands, this is essentially going down along political lines and is going to be a charlie foxtrot no matter what. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm trying to stay out of this and let the process take its course, (personal attacks and inaccuracies about me excepted) but I feel this question must be asked: What "multiple events"? Levi's only claim to notability for WP's purposes is that he dipped his wick in Bristol, the nn daughter of the very notable Sarah. Did he get someone else pregnant, or am I missing some best selling book he wrote, or what? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - KC, you've never said which speedy deletion criterion you relied on for the deletion. If I gather correctly from your statement above, it wasn't A7. Yet you seem to be making an A7-type argument here, that the article made no credible claim of notability. Could you please clarify the policy basis for the deletion? Will Beback talk 21:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - KC, you have yet to state by what criteria you speedy deleted this article. What is it? Are you now arguing it is only a one event BLP? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ism, what criteria I used to delete has nothing to do with my question. I've also already answered that several places, and was trying not to repeat myself, as I am remaining out of the argument here on the Drv, and do not wish to be seen to be promoting any position here. However, as both you and Will seem to have trouble finding (and in Will's case, understanding) what I say: Rationale was BLP, which is not a speedy criteria per se. As Arbcom has instructed that "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance." then clearly deletion in a BLP context is an appropriate choice. I have also opined that as the article made zero claims of notability (I consider calling Levi a "celebrity father" intensely bad writing, not a claim of notability) it would have also qualified under A7. Finally, as a side note, the article was in the space of a redir which had been deleted due to the nn of the subject, it seems unlikely the subject is actually notable enough for an entire article - which did indeed contain the date of the child's birth, which has been removed elsewhere as violating privacy of a minor; this does make the article a coatrack for trying to get that irrelevant detail in past those watching the Palin family of articles. Something I haven't bothered to mention prior to this, but as long as I'm posting this, I might as well - the article also highlighted Levi's "I don't want kids" and "I'm a f - - -in' redneck... Ya f - - - with me I'll kick [your] ass" from his MySpace, which he took down the minute the news media found it, which is precisely the kind of thing BLP protects him from having to endure - his old bs comments on MySpace should not haunt him forever, and he clearly doesn't want them public or he wouldn't have taken them down. As an OTRS volunteer, I would certainly remove should someone open a ticket requesting such youthful folly be expunged, as it is not news, not relevant, and is embarrassing. Wikipedia is not a gossip column, with nothing better to do than embarrass people over trivial details of their past. Add it all up, and there is zero reason to have this article on WP and quite a few not to. Now I have answered your question, hopefully for the last time - Peregine Fisher got it[4] two days ago - and I would appreciate it if you would answer mine. What "multiple events"? Levi got one girl pregnant, not a notable thing to do. You claim "multiple events" - What else did he do? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        KC, I look foward to having this conversation at Afd. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-evaluate admin privileges. The article clearly does not meet the criteria for speedy delete. It asserted notability and was extensively sourced, given the brevity of the article. Further, KillerChihuahua should probably have her admin privileges looked at, or at least be advised to WP:WIKIBREAK. She seems unable to procecss contrary opinions as anything other than a personal attack, and it's keeping her from being the kind of editor (let alone admin) that WP deserves. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, excuse me? KC is one of our most productive admins on the project. Making a deletion that people disagree with, or even making a genuinely bad deletion(which isn't what happened here), isn't by itself a reason to desysop someone. Given the large (although inconistent) leeway the community and ArbCom have given about BLP issues, such a deletion cannot be held against KC. Nor is strong arguing for one's point at all being ugh"seems unable to procecss contrary opinions as anything other than a personal attack." JoshuaZ (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sticking to the subject at hand; I agree with your statement that "The article clearly does not meet the criteria for speedy delete. It asserted notability and was extensively sourced, given the brevity of the article." This should be the main point of the discussion. Admin related issues can be discussed elsewhere. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm glad she's productive. I truly am. She may be helpful in the edits she makes to articles, but everywhere I look in the Talkspace, she's getting superdefensive in a way that does not encourage participation. I'm embarrassed for her, really. I'd like to see her keep her cool, which is why I strongly recommend a wikibreak. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your ignorance of the part admins play in articles under sanction is understandable, but your comments reflect badly on you rather than on KC. You should find my comment below informative, particularly in relation to the justification for speedy deletion of this previously deleted article. . dave souza, talk 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn like the Octomom and Kato Kaelin and other poseurs, the measure of notability has been achieved for ill or good such that a full discussion is at a minimum warranted and likely to end without a consensus to delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies to dave souza's replies. The info you're asking about was in the deleted article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked, which is why I found it unconvincing. . . dave souza, talk 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Information – a number of editors do not seem to have noticed that Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation refers to Wikipedia:General sanctions. In terms of Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community, KillerChihuahua is considered "uninvolved". The section immediately above that refers to Special enforcement on biographies of living persons – Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance..... This does not preclude the use of emergency measures where necessary, and all administrators are explicitly authorized to take such measures at their own discretion.
Many editors commenting here consider this article likely to fail AfD on BLP grounds, and in my view recreating an article without clear evidence that it complies with the letter and spirit of BLP policy would go against the express provisions of these sanctions. . . dave souza, talk 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you quote the relevant sentences, there's a lot to read there. Also, to me, but apparently not to all others, there's a big difference between creating an article where there was a deleted redirect, and re-creating an article where there was an actual article that was deleted. I don't think there are any guidelines or policies that specifically address that, although I could be wrong. I don't think KC was an involved admin or anything, but I think they've gone into unexplored territory, which should then warrant a full AfD to be sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no emergency requiring the deletion of this article without going to AFD, and it's not even clear that there was any violation of BLP to begin with. This is not a private or semi-private person we're discusing, but instead someone who has sought publicity for himself. AFD is the correct place to determine whether the assertions of notability meet Wikipedia standards. This has nothing to do with the Palin probation, which doesn't prohibit the creation of articles or empower "enforcers" to delete articles out of process. Will Beback talk 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to be clear about what WP:BLP actually says.
I've heard a number of editors, in various XfDs and DRVs of late, suggest that WP:BLP implies a presumption to delete articles. That suggestion is certainly false, and I point again to WP:BLPDEL, which is that part of WP:BLP that says very explicitly that for contentious deletions, the correct venue is XfD.
I think the confusion comes from WP:BURDEN, which says: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for details of this policy). As Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has put it: 'I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.'"
The distinction here is not, actually, subtle or difficult to understand. All editors (not just admins) are empowered, enjoined, and earnestly requested to cut any unsourced material from biographies of living people. But cutting unsourced material is not the same as summarily deleting articles; it's perfectly possible to cut unsourced material and leave a stub.
Therefore, WP:BURDEN is not in conflict with WP:BLPDEL. Our policies explictly require that this should go to AfD.
I've said before, at DRV, that I think there's room for discussion about whether a BLP should lead to a presumption to delete. But that discussion has not yet taken place and our policies say what they say.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to Afd, where I think it has a good chance of being kept, on the basis of extensive continuing coverage. do no harm has its limits when it comes to public figures. Involvement in a presidential campaign destroys privacy even for relatively peripheral individuals, and everyone involved surely must have been aware of it from the start. DGG (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt that Johnston had any idea that he might get dragged into the Presidential campaign when he started his relationship with Bristol. I suppose we can discuss this at AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to note; Johnston did choose to appear on Larry King Live, the Tyra Banks Show, the Early Show, etc... But as JoshuaZ has stated above - we can discuss this at AfD! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold Delete Perhaps KC was hasty and overzealous in deleting the page but in my view the snowball clause applies. The arguments being waged here are much the same as in the RFD and likely to be the same in an AFD. Restoring the article will just allow parliamentary maneuvering to let a coatrack article exist for a short time Ucanlookitup (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The two main arguments in the RfD were keep and delete because the target contained no mention of Johnston. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I counted the votes. It was 8 keeps, 4 delete because the target contains no mention, 2 delete because he isn't notable, and 1 redirect to Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy. If there was any snow, it was keep. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Correction to your count: There were 10 editors favoring keep (4 supporting a redirect to the image article, 2 supporting a redirect to the main bio, and 4 supporting "keep" without specifying their preferred target). Of course, not all of them would support having a standalone article. As against that, some of the editors who favored deleting a pointless redirect (because its target didn't mention the redirect term) might support a standalone article. What we learn is that, if you want to know whether the Wikipedia community considers an article on Levi Johnston appropriate, you have to ask that question, not try to read the RfD tea leaves. We ask that question through AfD. JamesMLane t c 05:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Snowball" means overwhelming support or oppisition. I don't see how that applies here. Further, I don't see how the article can be considered a "coatrack", which is an article that purports to be about one topic but which is really about another. The article in question was narrowly focused on its subject. In any case, "coatrack" is not a legitimate reason for deletion - it's a problem to be fixed. Will Beback talk 03:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coatrack means that the article is a pretense to push a point of view about another subject. Levi Johnston is only interesting because he is an embarrassment to Sarah Palin. Snowball means that ultimately the action being requested will fail and is therefore a waste of time. I realize that respondents to the RFD cited the fact that he wasn't mentioned in the article (I was one of them), but the underlying point was that Levi Johnston is not notable and should not be mentioned in the article or be given inappropriate attention with a redirect. If we need to debate the merits of a separate article, why not do it here and now? We can have the same debate with the article deleted as we can with the article nominated for deletion. Insisting that it be undeleted and then debated seems like a bureaucratic tactic to allow the article to exist for 5 days when it will ultimately fail on it's merits Ucanlookitup (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was the old Levi. The new Levi is interesting becuase he's gone on a media blitz. Just this latest bit of going on interviews has enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable on its own. Also, I think it's a good idea to be able to see the article that is to be deleted, like with AfD, instead of saying it has problems without looking at them or discussing them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ucanlookitup, I don't believe that the Johnston article pushed a particular point of view, especially not about any third party. However since the article is deleted we can't look at the the contents or sources. Five days isn't significant one way or another. We don't know how an AFD will turn out, and there's no harm in seeing. The article did not contain any apparent BLP violations and no speedy deletion criteria has been given either. So let's undelete it and put it through a proper AFD. Will Beback talk 05:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with Peregrine and Will. I add, in response to Ucanlookitup, that "coatrack" refers to the content of the article, not to your speculations about why some editors choose to work on it. It would be a coatrack if it briefly mentioned the pregnancy and then said, "This incident illustrates the futility of Palin's cherished abstinence-only education," followed by a lot of text about abstinence-only education. By your theory, Mary Jo Kopechne and Monica Lewinsky would be deleteable as coatrack articles. JamesMLane t c 05:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        hmm- in both examples you cite, they were central to a historic controversy. Levi Johnston is central to ....nothing at all. That's the point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucanlookitup (talk • contribs) 05:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That relates to notability but not to your charge of coatracking. The point is that if the article's title is "Person X" and the article is actually about Person X, then it's not a coatrack, even if some people may be happy to see the information about Person X because it's thought to reflect badly on Person Y. JamesMLane t c 07:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If the article doesn't pass notability, it shouldn't exist. If we create it anyway as a place to put information that reflects badly on Person Y - information that was removed from Person Y's page - we are using it as a coatrackUcanlookitup (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update KC stated above that he would be happy to undelete the article so that it can be placed at Afd. I replied above and asked KC to please undelete the article so that it may be be placed at Afd. It would be more appropriate to continue many of the discussions above in that venue. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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