- Murder of Somer Thompson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Page about a recent murder of a young girl. Several editors contributed to the article, and I do not think it should be deleted without discussion. In fact, I do not see any alternatives to an AfD for this article, as PROD was contested (twice), and CSD specifically prohibits deletion under WP:NOT. I appealed to the deleting admin here (their reply here). decltype (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and send to AfD. Deletion was plainly out of process. Tim Song (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, that looks pretty clear cut. I can see no flaw at all in what Decltype says. Overturn and list at AfD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted for now yes, technically this doesn't quite meet the CSD. However, (as I recall) the article breaches WP:NOTNEWS and involves a very recent murder. It seems both unnecessary and cruel to debate this right now. IAR deletions should rarely be used, but in this instance the admin did good. This article does not belong on wikipedia, but if people must have a debate about it, let's have it a little further away from the sad events. Undeleting merely on procedural grounds and forcing an unnecessary debate would be poor form.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that we would be able to have a dignified discussion about the subject's eligibility for inclusion that would not cause unnecessary harm or distress. Especially if there is unanimous consent to delete. decltype (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The main point of DRV is to ascertain whether the deletion process was correctly followed, and if it was not, to impose some kind of remedy. I do not see how we can endorse this. But I do recognise Scott MacDonald's concern. AfD discussions are, all too often, neither dignified nor orderly, and I would certainly not want to make Somer Thompson's family miserable over some user-submitted content on an encyclopaedia.
I think an AfD could take place concerning a fully-protected, courtesy-blanked version of the article, with the history visible underneath. I also think uninvolved admins should be enjoined to observe the AfD closely and see that it is conducted sensitively. In any case, the deletion followed by this DRV has ensured a seven-day delay that will at least give a little distance.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is a body of opinion that this article should be kept, then by all means let's have a debate and keep it as dignified as possible. But if, as I suspect, the result is obvious, then overturning on procedural ground and risking the debate would be pedantic and pathetic. Does anyone here actually think this article ought to be retained, and can they make a reasonable case? If they do and can, then by all means undelete and list. If not, then let's move on and be sensible.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted for now. Scott's arguments are persuasive. There appears to be nothing unique about this tragedy beyond its general newsworthiness. Powers T 15:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn and send to afd- deleting without discussion in when the article did not meet any speedy criteria (at least none that I've seen mentioned) should not be allowed. The article will likely not survive an AFD, but the community needs to make the decision in a case like this, not one person. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You agree this should be deleted, but want to force a deletion discussion when not one person is currently arguing the article should be retained, knowing that will both waste wikipedian time, and add an unneccessary and possibly distressing debate to a sensitive subject? You know, sometimes I despair that a community that is supposed to be noble and full of common sense so often descends into rule-mongering and pathetic inflexibility.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if it will pass afd. But whether or not it does is not relevant. The decision in cases like this should not be made unilaterally. If the consensus of an AFD is delete, then it should be deleted. But "It would have been deleted anyway" should not be a reason, unless the admin has a crystal ball and can tell for absolute certainty what the outcome would have been. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, restore. Preemptive speedy deletion under NOTNEWS is clearly out of policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you are right. But no one is arguing that policy does allow deletion. The is an WP:IAR deletion. The question is it is justifiable. If you think there's a case for keeping the article, then let's relist and discuss that. Do you think there's a case for keeping? Otherwise, why restore poor content?--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was deprodded twice, and in the absence of contrary evidence, I'll presume that at least one editor believes in good faith that there's a reasonable case for keeping the article. How strong that case is can and should be discussed at AFD. I do not see a reasonable case for IAR deletion; this isn't by any means the first time an issue of this sort has come up, and the outcome is not unequivocably clear-cut. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment re WP:NOTNEWS, I'm relatively new so perhaps not familiar with how it's applied in practice, but reading WP:NOTNEWS it seems to me to be saying that something that's in the news shouldn't automatically have an article, but it's not saying that it definitely shouldn't? Wouldn’t most notable events have been in the news at the time they happened? (I won't mind being corrected if I've misunderstood.) Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the point for me is that an event doesn't get an article simply because it has news coverage. It needs more than that. News stories are not excluded, it is just that being a news story and having news sources doesn't automatically qualify. News stories may get a lot of press for a day or two and then be forgotten. To be encyclopedic something needs to have some deeper significance. It needs to be the type of case people will comment on or refer back to after the news cycle is over. Does it have some larger legal social or cultural consequence? If it being discussed beyond the time itself. The problem is that for recent events it is largely too soon to tell, it is usually easier 12 months or more later. WP:RECENTISM is also worth considering.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and send to AFD. WP:NOT is not a speedy criteria. Period. AFD may delete it in a WP:SNOW but we won't know until we see it. WP:NOT is very subjective and CSD is very specific blatant cases. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and send to AfD and advise the admin involved about the inadvisability of substituting himself for the community. Given the two deprods mentioned, this was an clearly wrong way to do this. Scott, your view of the articles may seem clear to you, but it is not quite so clear to others. And even if it were, we have no good way of preventing future incorrect deletions except to consistently overturn them. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see deleted edits and had no knowledge of the prods. I've said all along that if anyone wants to make a substantive argument to keep it, then there ought to be an AfD. That's fine. However, if the article has no defended it would be disruptive to restore bad content and force a needless debate just to make some point about admins and rules. This is not a good way of "preventing future incorrect deletions" (whatever that might mean) as a) it patently does not work and b) replacing bad content is detrimental to the encyclopedia and should not be done is some warped attempt to "punish" the deletor for not following the letter of the rules. If an admin is acting in a way you don't like, then dispute resolution is the way to go, not damaging the encyclopedia for punishment. Has it occurred to you that many deleting admins simply move on and ignore such nonsense, rather than feeling chastised.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Out of process deletion. It may very well be a valid topic for an article. Hobit (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion though technically deleted out of process, this was clearly a news story and not an encyclopedia article. So all in all a good use of IAR by the admin. RMHED (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I have seen several similar articles deleted at AfD, so I think this was an appropriate use of IAR by the deleting admin. I don't think that restoring is an appropriate method of chastising an admin for deleting out of process. Kevin (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn Out of process deletion. Needs to go through AfD where it can be discussed by the community. Speedy deletion criteria are narrow for a reason. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list at AfD where it will be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS and absence of any secondary sources. Or just slap the deleting admin for an out of process deletion. There was no need to rush the deletion of this article, and wherever possible the community needs to be keep involved in content decisions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per WP:BURO — no one seems to have come up with any reasons why the article should actually be kept, so putting it through the process just for the sake of dotting the I's and crossing the T's would be a waste of time. Also, a case could be made that this deletion falls under WP:A7 as an article that "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." *** Crotalus *** 21:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really want admins just deleting articles because they think it shouldn't be kept? Further, the sources are more than enough to ward it from A7. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because the admin did wrong is no reason to go through needless bureaucracy just to confirm that the end result was correct. Powers T 15:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that would lead to admins speeding all sorts of things they shouldn't. Perhaps my normally rosy view of human nature is failing me, but I find that if you let people get away with something they are not supposed to do, they tend to keep doing it. That would create more work in the long run... Hobit (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly doubt it. This is a bit of a special case as it involves a sensitive news event. I think admonishment ought to be more than sufficient to deter any future maleficence. Powers T 02:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Due process is sometimes inconvenient, but it's important. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but sometimes it's also pointless, as in this case. What due process we have must be in the service of improving the encyclopedia. Relisting this will just waste everyone's time. Powers T 15:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Skipping a trial just because you "know" the defendant is guilty wouldn't fly in the legal system, and I see no reason why it should fly here either. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because we're not a bureaucracy, and articles do not have human rights. The subject of this article, however, did, as does her family, and there is is thus compelling reason not to undelete this article just so we can talk about whether it should be deleted. (Besides, we do sometimes skip trials. Prosecutors often offer plea deals to a defendant to avoid the spectacle of a trial, or to avoid forcing victims to testify. If we must analogize to the legal system, I think that's a much fairer comparison.) Powers T 16:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not being an admin, I can't view the article, so I have no idea whether the article would or would not pass an afd. I'd rather see the community as a whole make that decision, a jury trial, in this case, than one admin make an arbitrary decision, which in this case is more like sending someone to jail with no trial, no time in front of a judge, nothing. I assume good faith in the deleting admin. However, as the saying goes "Trust in God, but cut the cards." Umbralcorax (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The cache version is still available for me. It see it as a clear fail at AfD, but with nothing there to warrant an IAR or BLP speedy deletion. It is just a collection of online news information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion It is pointless to send it to AfD just for bureaucracy then there are no good reason's for article's actual existence.--Staberinde (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse deletion - Those of you asking for overturn on procedural grounds seem to be missing the point of Scott's argument, or perhaps you think process wonkery is more important than doing the right thing by the family of a victim. Deleting this article was the right thing to do. Endorse. ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion - This is the very reason we have IAR. Why send a useless article to AFD just to get the same result in return? We don't need added bureaucracy when it was a reasonable use of IAR. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment IAR requires the action to be such as the community will clearly support, and this does not have the necessary degree of support. I suggest we might do well to further limit it to it's original intent, when there is something not covered by the rules. The purpose of the rules is to to overcomplicate things, but to prevent idiosyncratic action by individuals. With 1000 active admins, each of them going their own way will produce an inconsistent chaos--if we are to produce an actual encyclopedia, instead of randomly selected fragments, which need to agree on what we do. We have a way to find out if an article is supportable, and we should use it. A practice that we delete any BLP to which one admin objects, is about the worst way or doing things possible. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you say that deletion doesn't have the necessary degree of support? Not one person has stepped forward to say that this article should be kept. That tells me the end result is overwhelmingly accepted; it's merely the process that was incorrect. The admin should be admonished, but why overturn a clearly correct result just for the sake of going through a pointless and potentially upsetting process? Powers T 20:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, relist - We'll just have to agree to disagree. I do think that the article should be properly deleted, but we gain nothing from avoiding proper procedures. Nothing about the article required emergency action, and by deleting it out of process, without even being able to articulate a reason that such action was needed, guarantees far more attention than the AfD would have done. The problem with endorsing this is that the suitability of articles of this ilk is being debated widely on BLP grounds right now. By not following process, we invite observations like the one above. I would much rather have the debate out in the open. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Keep the article deleted, move on. GlassCobra 17:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted I share the concerns over an article being deleted at the will of one admin bypassing all policies. However we are where we are, restoring the article doesn't turn the clock back and I suggest that using IAR now to prevent an AFD discussion about a sensitive subject, the outcome of which is a foregone conclusion, would be appropriate. There isn't even any substantial content in the article worth salvaging, if in future it does become appropriate to have an article about this a new one can be created. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion per WP:BURO. Obvious violation of WP:NOTNEWS, so sending this to AfD is just procedural onanism. Eusebeus (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist WP:NOTNEWS has not fared well of late at AfD, and even though I'd go with deleting it I'm not at all sure the community would agree. RayTalk 03:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted, no barrier to future recreation if circumstances warrant Some articles about disappeared or murdered children like Bobby Franks surpass WP:NOTNEWS by becoming the subject of books, plays, or films or by demonstrating historic importance through societal changes, or even new laws such as the Lindbergh Law, Megan's law or the Amber alert. I would have argued for deletion in AFD, since this one, so far, is a tragic news story and does not show such encyclopedic notability. I do not see such cases as speedyable. I see no prospect at this time for a Keep outcome from an AFD, so it would seem pointless to send this one there, and would create needless drama. After 12 or 24 hours a snowball close as delete would have been the likely outcome. But sometimes child disappearances or murders get kept if the international news coverage is massive, like Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, so I tend to question the right of 1000 admins to delete any such articles they don't like and arbitrarily delete them, substituting their judgment for that of the community. Edison (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. The "do no harm" spirit of BLP and BLP1E apply here, though, sadly, the policy titles themselves don't. This pushes speedy deletion to, and even past, its tightly constrained bounds, but per WP:SNOW that's not enough for an automatic overturn from me given the subject matter. I fully support trouting the admin but I don't see the need to discuss the article for a further seven days when the proper result is as clear as it is here. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
