Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 27

< January 26	Deletion review archives: 2007 January	January 28 >

27 January 2007

Podróże z i pod prąd and Wszystko jedno

Blood Krupters

I think that this page should not be deleted as it is a history of a gang and nothing is bad about it! Please undelete it! I will be very thankfull! Sapp Krupter 12:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, valid Articles-7, WP:NFT. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as per Sam Blanning. Also, User:Sapp Krupter is stating no significant reason to overturn. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 20:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Balaskas

Administrator appeared to overlook the extensive evidence that she is a notable author and speaker on natural childbirth, particlarly provided by the latter comments on the AFD. She coined the phrase "Active Birth" A Google Search shows some 71,000 uses of the term. She has published six books. I can't see that this fails our notability requirements! Maustrauser 12:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. It doesn't matter if she's notable. You still must have multiple reliable (and independent) sources, which you did not. If you have any reliable sources, please show us them. -Amark moo! 15:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the AFD certainly showed a bunch of multiple and independent sources. She has published six books with DIFFERENT publshers (big publishers too - not vanity publishers). Isn't the test you applying much tighter than applies to bands, musicians, and cartoon characters that populate WP? The vast majority of these that have no reliable and independent sources other than a fansite and/or a publisher? It appears you are saying she might be notable, but the article is badly referenced. In that case, it deserves a reference tag, not deletion. Finally, there was no concensus between the editors for deletion. I suggest a better response from the administrator would be to have closed the AfD with 'No consensus' and suggested that the article be cleaned up. Maustrauser 22:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A book written by her is not a source. An article written by someone else, which is on her, is a source. And I reject the m:Eventualist stance of "Oh, well someone might find sources at some point in the future, so we can't delete unsourced things". It's your responsibility to find the sources, not other people's responsibility to prove that no sources exist or ever will exist. -Amark moo! 01:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My frustration is that the AfD showed sources! It showed articles about her written by others! That is why I have brought this to deletion review. Maustrauser 03:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist the only sources for notability I see in the AfD is the Google News Archive search. A quick look shows that some are trivial but some may be good. Further discussion focussing on whether specific sourced culled from that list demonstrate encyclopedic notabilty per WP:BIO would be appropriate. Eluchil404 06:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
relist Yes, it It is difficult to select the few right sources from such a large search, and a focused AfD might be able to do it. DGG 06:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marsden-Donnelly harassment case

I am sad to say this is back at Deletion Review for the second time:

November 17, 2006: Speedily deleted by User:JzG. The Rachel Marsden ArbCom case was open at that time.
November 22: Overturned at Deletion Review (discussion) and sent to AfD.
November 28: Arbcom case closed (Arbcom decision)
November 29: AfD closed as an overwhelming keep (discussion); article restored
December 1: Speedily deleted by User:SlimVirgin.
December 2: Arbcom clarification issued [1][2][3], indicating that Arbcom had not asked for the article to be deleted.

I have since tried to negotiate with SlimVirgin (by email) to have the article undeleted, but she has not agreed to do so.

Discussion on deletion has also taken place at: Talk:Marsden-Donnelly harassment case and Talk:Rachel Marsden/Archive2. I don't dare to summarize the discussion, however it should be noted that much of it comes from single-purpose accounts and sockpuppets. User:Stompin' Tom, who suggested the most recent speedy deletion, is a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. In my opinion, no basis in Wikipedia policy has been given for deletion.

A person familiar with Canadian news over the past ten years would not consider this to be a sub-article of Rachel Marsden, or vice-versa. Half an hour of research easily establishes that the case soars above any notability bar we have, by a factor of ten at least. See the cross-section of newspaper articles compiled at Talk:Rachel Marsden/Reliable Sources . Most of the items in numbers 106 to 299 deal directly with the case, and most of the rest make mention of it. The article should be expanded to discuss its far-reaching social impact, for which there is plenty of source material including a 1434 word article in the Phi Delta Kappan. Expanding the article would have the fortunate side effect of making it less focused on the individuals involved.

The energy spent putting this article through deletions and undeletions would have been much better spent on constructively discussing concerns on the Talk page. Kla'quot 01:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request clarification Do you want the old text back? If so why? Or do you instead just want people to join you in writing this article afresh. I see no discussion since 7 December, a month and a half ago, at Talk:Marsden-Donnelly harassment case prior to opening this deletion review. I also see no mention at Talk:Rachel Marsden, and it doesn't look like the work of creating a decent article there is complete. GRBerry 02:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want the old text back. (Doesn't everyone who brings a deleted article to DRV want the old text back??) It was a very well-sourced article on a complex case and it would take a lot of work to start it from scratch. I put a notice about this deletion review at Talk:Marsden-Donnelly harassment case, probably a minute or so after you looked for it. I don't think it's essential to mention it at Talk:Rachel Marsden and chose not to because I don't want to perpetuate the meme that one article is a sub-article or fork of the other, but since you asked, I will put a notice there. Kla'quot 02:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please perform a history-only undeletion of this article so contributors 0can see what we are talking about? Kla'quot 02:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it astonishing that a case of "far-reaching social impact" has not been widely covered in the mainstream press or the sociology literature (article in PDK notwithstanding)? It seems to have created a very brief local stir. Keep deleted. Grace Note 02:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been covered dozens of times by the mainstream press. Maybe less so in your country than in mine. You still haven't given a basis in Wikipedia policy to delete it. Kla'quot 02:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To give some indication of what utter nonsense Grace Note's "brief local stir" comment is, the Ottawa Citizen ran a two-part set of articles about the case, totalling 7438 words, in December 1999. This was two and a half years after the story broke. The distance between SFU and Ottawa is 5660km. Kla'quot 04:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes I have. It contained unsourced information on living people. Thus, anyone stopping by should have, and apparently did, remove it. That's what WP:BLP is. -Amark moo! 02:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Amarkov, my reply was to Grace Note, not to you. You were the first person to vote Keep in the AfD [4] and nothing has been added to the article since then, so why did you change your mind? And what unsourced information are you talking about? The article was extremely well-referenced. Feel free to email me if it's too sensitive to repeat here. Kla'quot 02:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. I saw the article, and it had too many WP:BLP issues. Just recreate it. On another note, why did anyone think that Arbcom even has jurisdiction over article deletions? -Amark moo! 02:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weird. I could have sworn that this was an unsourced pile of... you know. I find it hard to believe that it was speedy deleted twice for no reason, though, so I'm just not going to comment now. -Amark moo! 03:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might want to check the original AfD, ca. line 5, A. ~ trialsanderrors 03:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) 1) People can misunderstand anything. 2) Simple cases never get to Arbcomm - they get solved long before that. Misinterpretations happen, that is why ArbComm has a "Requests for clarification" on the main page. GRBerry 03:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history restored behind screen. ~ trialsanderrors 02:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Apart from being a significant news story in its own right, the Marsden-Donnelly harrassment case had national significance beyond the actions of the two main participants. Several Canadian universities re-evaluated their procedures for adjudicating sexual harrassment complaints in light of the decision, and there was something of a "chill" on the issue for a time. I do not believe the decision to delete this page was appropriate, and I have some reason to suspect that SlimVirgin's perspective on the matter may not conform precisely to the expected standards of neutrality. ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) CJCurrie 04:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. The ArbCom ruling allowed that any admin could delete the Marsden articles if there were BLP concerns, and I feel the concerns are very real in this case. She's arguably not notable enough for one article, let alone two. The first of the articles was created by a Canadian left-wing political activist as what appeared to be an attack page, one of a number of such pages on right-wing figures the editor didn't like. Since then, both articles have attracted a lot of trouble and very poor editing. There were blogs being used as sources, including, if I understood the ArbCom case correctly, a blog belonging to an admin who both edited the page and took admin action in relation to it; speculation about Marsden's sexuality; sly implications that she doesn't tell the truth about her education or professional life; people involved in the situation in real life editing the article; persistent sockpuppetry on both sides; and allegedly demonstrable damage to Marsden's career as a direct result of the articles. In fact, just about everything that should worry us BLP-wise has happened on one of the Marsden pages. Given her borderline notability, we should have at most one article about her, and we do at Rachel Marsden. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- 1)The ArbCom case never determined that a blog belonging to an admin was used as a source for this page. This may have been asserted by one of the participants, but never appeared in the final decision nor was it even extensively discussed. A search of the relevant blog for "Marsden" brings up nothing, so I doubt this is true. 2) Most of the BLP concerns you raise appeared in Rachel Marsden and not in Marsden-Donnelly harassment case. Problems with a previous version of an article X are not a reason to delete the best-available version of article Y, and since when did we delete based on the worst-available version of any page? 3) The political orientation of contributors is not a reason to delete. 4) Marsden-Donnelly harassment case has been written mainly by well-established users, and the participation of sockpuppets is not a reason to delete anyway. 5) There are hundreds of articles in reliable newspapers, from all across Canada, whose primary subject is either the harassment case or Rachel Marsden. This is not borderline notability no matter how many times you say it is. If we were to have one article, it should be the harassment case article, not Rachel Marsden. Kla'quot 18:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends what you mean by non-trivial coverage, I think. There is certainly a lot of sensationalist coverage, as one would expect given that this is a politically active individual, but no real evidence of scholarly critical review of the case that I've seen. Can anyone cite reviews in the legal journals or use as precedent as case law? That would be non-trivial. We'd need to be sure of that before taking on the pain of maintaining an article which has been used as a hatchet job in the past - it seems the only peopel who really care about this article are Marsden's political opponents. And I don't buy CJCurrie's accusations of bias against SV, either. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) The imagined or real political orientation of contributors is not basis in policy to delete, especially given that an AfD closed as an overwhelming Keep. 2) Who has called Marsden-Donnelly harassment case a hatchet job, and where? 3) Are you saying that the notability bar for cases is "reviews in the legal journals and precedent as case law"? What policy did you get this from? 4) Cases settled out of court do not set legal precedent. You still have not given any basis in Wikipedia policy to delete this article. Kla'quot 16:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Oh yes it does, if the presence only of detractors and political opponents means that WP:BLP is being violated; 2) ArbCom in the Marsed case referred to several of the articles as including WP:BLP violations, including this one; 3) the notability bar is non-trivial coverage, sensationalist coverage in local or regional media is, by and large, trivial, hence I am asking what wider coverage exists - we have articles on many ground-breaking cases cited as precedent, we do not have articles on most cases even though most will have at least a couple of mentions in the local press - Wikipedia is not tabloid journalism, Wikinews is thataway → ; 4) All sorts of cases can set precedent, even if the precedent is only that such cases do not get prosecuted. Per policy, we are not a directory of legal cases, a tabloid newspaper or an attack site. Which is why I have concerns over this article. But I keep an open mind, which is why I asked for more information. Your response encourages me to believe that no wider coverage exists and that this is being pursued for sensationalist and political reasons. I apologise for my cynicism. Guy (Help!) 19:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'd like to answer your question about what wider coverage exists. Has the case been discussed in legal journals? To the best of my knowledge, no. Has it been extensively covered beyond the "local and regional" press, in stories that are multiple-pages long, beyond a brief period of time, beyond sensationalist stories, and beyond the tabloid press? Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes, all at the same time, and these sources are cited in the article. If there is a spectrum of significance with minor local junk at the low end and multiple ciations in legal journals on the high end, this event falls somewhere within the spectrum, as do many events for which we have articles in Wikipedia (including all current events). I think we agree that we should delete articles on events that are at the low end of the spectrum, and we generally should keep articles at the high end. We're looking at something in-between, so I'm asking for us to a) articulate what the standard for inclusion really is, and b) evaluate whether this event meets the standard, as separate exercises. My participation in (b) will be limited: After being put through the wringer yesterday for citing sources too much (see my talk page), I have chosen to stop participating, as much as possible, in any discussion about information that relates to Marsden. Kla'quot 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted I do not think the issue is non-trivial coverage. I think the issue is that the harassment case is if not the only then one of two or three things that merits any article at all. The current article addresses the harassment case. My point is simply that Marsden merits only one article. the current article could go into appropriate encyclopediac detail about the case and its significance and still be WAY under the ideal word-limit for wikipedia articles. And anyone interested in this case can easily find the Marsden article and thus all the information anyone could want to find concerning the case at Wikipedia. One article is enough. If the article reaches 50 kb and there is a consensus that all the material in the article conforms with all of our policies, then we can discuss spin-off articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"We need one article, not two" is an argument for merging, not deleting. The Rachel Marsden article is deliberately short due to the difficulty of writing a longer NPOV article about her, and currently says almost nothing about the case. The harassment case is historically far more important than Rachel Marsden, so if we were to merge them, I would vote to keep the harassment case article. Kla'quot 16:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that much of that content was deleted because it either violated NOR or Verifiability or came from an inappropriate source. There is no need to officially merge articles. If any deleted content is fully compliant with WP:NOR and WP:V and comes from appropriate sources, just add that content to the current article!! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with what you say about the content that was deleted from Rachel Marsden, but in any case, I am not suggesting that the articles be merged. What I am suggesting is that if we merged the articles, Marsden-Donnelly harassment case should be the title of the resulting article. Please clarify if you want the articles merged or if you want Marsden-Donnelly harassment case deleted; we can't do both. Kla'quot 17:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, massive undue weight problem, WP:BLP and the Arbcom case are enough reason to keep it deleted. The claim that the case had any impact beyond SFU appears to be so much armwaving, as it's been repeated endlessly with no hard evidence that I've seen - it isn't even asserted in the article as it stood, only in Wikipedia space. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but how does BLP apply in the least to articles which are well-sourced, like this one? And how can you justify deletion because of an Arbcom case, especially when they make it clear that they did not intend to say that the article had to be deleted? -Amark moo! 15:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sam, could you please clarify what you mean by "a massive undue weight problem"? What point of view is being given undue weight in this article? Kla'quot 17:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Undue weight here refers to the amount of detail lavished on an event of no proven significance. When we devote paragraph after paragraph to such an event, either we're trying to damage the subject, or it looks like we're trying to damage the subject, and which it is doesn't matter. As to why BLP applies, BLP applies because it's a biography of a living person. Verifiability is not the only non-negotiable policy here, WP:NPOV is no less important just because it's more subjective. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sam, everyone agrees that the WP:BLP policy applies to this article. The question is: How is is it being violated in this article? You seem to be saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) that if neutrally covering an event in detail would damage one of the individuals involved, we need to demonstrate that the case is of proven signifcance. Am I understanding you correctly? Kla'quot 19:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If we are giving something undue weight, it is not being covered neutrally. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per Sam Blanning. GreenJoe 17:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per Sam Blanning. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn since it was speedy deleted and resubmit to an AFD. If consensus in an AFD says delete then delete, otherwise keep. General Idea 18:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just since it's becoming a recurring topic here at DRV, the standing community consensus is the one from the last AfD. So any "Keep deleted" opinions are in fact "overturn AfD closure, delete" opinions, and "Overturn, restore" are "Enforce AfD closure" opinions. So unless there is overwhelming consensus to overturn the AfD consensus, this will be sent back. ~ trialsanderrors 19:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per Sam Blanning above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, by its nature a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Fred Bauder 19:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on nomination: The claim in the nomination that "Arbcom clarification issued [10][11][12], indicating that Arbcom had not asked for the article to be deleted" is a misrepresentation. In all three links, it's very clear that SimonP is referring to the deletion of Rachel Marsden and only Rachel Marsden, not Marsden-Donnelly harassment case as the nomination claims. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was specifically referring to the Marsden article in those comments, and personally I doubt that the case merits its own page; however, this subject certainly should be covered in the Marsdean and SFU articles. - SimonP 18:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you're saying. My reading of Arbcom's intent is subjective and dependent on context: Several questions were asked in the request for clarification. CJCurrie pointed out that both pages had already been deleted, and asked whether page deletion is a solution. [13] I asked why ArbCom did not delete the pages themselves as soon as the case closed.[14] The clarification was worded in general terms and did not directly address specific questions. If they wanted either page to be deleted, this was their chance to say so but they clearly chose not to. My point is that Arbcom has never asked for Marsden-Donnelly harassment case, as it existed at the close of the Arbcom case, to be deleted. Immediate deletion was not requested in their Final Decision, and (in my view) the clarification made it more clear that immediate deletion was not being requested. Kla'quot 19:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant Arbcom statement is: "Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator.[15]" SlimVirgin has made some less-than exact paraphrases of this before:

I forget the exact words but they said any version deemed inappropriate by an admin could be deleted, or words to that effect. Process-wise, there's no problem here. It's a judgment call. (This comment was in relation to the speedy deletion of Rachel Marsden.
The case has gone through ArbCom, which ruled that any admin could stub the article and ask that it be started from scratch, which is now being done. (also in relation to Rachel Marsden)
And again on this page: The ArbCom ruling allowed that any admin could delete the Marsden articles if there were BLP concerns, and I feel the concerns are very real in this case. BLP concerns - not violations in the actual, current, article - were then described.

I hope this explains why I brought up the ArbCom clarification in my nomination: I have seen Arbcom's decision paraphrased before in ways that I consider skewed. Everything I've seen from Arbcom members since then indicates that their original statement stands as stated - no more, no less. Kla'quot 06:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per Fred. However, it might be appropriate to include some of this material in Simon Fraser University. The notable event was not the Marsden-Donelly case itself, but the fact that this case prompted a review of the handling of harassment cases that resulted in several old cases being overturned and the resignation of the university president. A brief description of the Marsden case in the context of the overall controversy at SFU might be appropriate. Naming the article after Marsden is by itself a BLP/undue weight violation--it would be like writing an article about the Trojan War calling it the Paris-Helen affair. Thatcher131 20:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for your fresh and well-reasoned suggestions. I agree with moving the page to, say, Simon Fraser University 1997 sexual harassment controversy as the overall story was about endemic problems in the university investigation process, which were exposed by the Marsden-Donnelly case. Kla'quot 20:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no reason to make it a separate article. A couple of paragraphs in the article on SFU will be sufficient. And it certainly shouldn't be moved, but rewritten, bearing in mind that the focus is on SFU's flawed process for dealing with harassment cases, of which the Marsden case happens to be the one where the accused fought back. Thatcher131 01:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lexis-Nexis (1997–2001) uses the word harassment 52 times in a headline wrt to the case. What's your standard for a stand-alone article? 100 headline mentions? I'd say most of the article use SFU as an identifier, some others Simon Fraser, so 1997 Simon Fraser makes sense. ~ trialsanderrors 03:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted, as per Sam Blanning. MortonDevonshire Yo · 20:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per Sam Blanning and Thatcher131. If anything is notable, it should go into SFU or RM articles per above comments. Crum375 21:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per Samuel Blanning. Musical L inguist 22:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could someone please explain why Arbcom has jurisdiction over article deletions? -Amark moo! 00:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. We're interpreting ArbCom's findings re the problematic history of these articles and the difficulty of keeping them compliant, with content removed up in one place only to pop up in another. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom has no right to give any admin carte blanche to delete the article at will. It's enabling censorship and a clear impediment to attracting good-willed editors. ~ trialsanderrors 02:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Per many good arguments presented. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted per Sam (and Fred and Thatcher). As for ArbCom, I'm not sure that people are saying we have to delete this because they say so but more we should delete this because of the problems that they recognized. On the other hand, As the highest level of dispute resolution ArbCom has authority to issue binding decisions in the name of the community/Jimbo. Where there are substantive policy issues (such as WP:BLP), as opposed to a simple content dispute, at stake I see no problem with making a deletion decision. Eluchil404 06:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted Issue of whether Marsden was harassed was never resolved and no precedents of any kind were set. Of local notability at best. Kitty's little helper 11:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Kitty's little helper is a confirmed sockpuppet of banned user Arthur Ellis. Kla'quot 17:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not a sock puppet. Arthur Ellis does not have an account on Wikipedia. I am editing legally. People can look at my edits and szee if I have been in the least bit disruptive. I have started some important new entries, copy-edited a couple of hundred, and am being attacked because I have crossed Kla'quot's little Marsden hate campaign. Kitty's little helper 19:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted per all of the above. - Merzbow 01:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted as per arguments presented. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse consensus AfD closure, overturn unilateral deletion First of all, even if anywhere remotely true, Sam Blanning's comments amount to an AfD round 2, which routinely gets thrown out at DRV. No argument was made why the AfD endorsement was out of process. Second, his misreading of NPOV is egregious. Claiming that the harassment case is not notable enough for a stand-alone article and needs to be merged into the Harsden article is like claiming the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal article needs to be merged into Crystal Gail Mangum. Evidence for national notability per WP:N is overwhelming. After reading 100 kilobytes of material on the case from 1997–99 Newsbank and Lexis-Nexis articles there is no doubt in my mind that under any additional restrictions the article would still look functionally identical to the one endorsed by AfD and deleted by SlimVirgin. If we require triple-sourcing for every claim made the article would look functionally the same. If we require that each claim be sourced to only the three or four most reputable media sources in Canada the article would still look the same. If require that no local newspapers be used to support the claims the article would still be functionally the same. Even (and that's the only claim in the article I found dubious) if we restrict ourselves to only international coverage we could write an article that supports the key claims. There is no substantial disagreement among reputable media sources on the key facts, which is clearly within Due Weight: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. Kla'quot made every effort possible to substantiate this, and all she got here in response is a number of established editors putting fingers in their ears and singing lalala so they don't have to acknowledge the evidence. The attempts to constantly move the goalposts here in order to discourage Kla'quot from editing the article is equally shameful and amounts to functional censorship. The idea that a comprehensive list of sourced headlines relevant to the case amount to biased editing and fails BLP is an egregious misreading of our policies. "Newspaper X wrote Y on day Z" is in Wikipedia parlance a fact as long as there is no reasonable disagreement that newspaper X actually ran headline Y on day Z. This is the currency Wikipedia is built on, and to claim that The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, Maclean's, or even the Vancouver Sun are suddenly unreliable sources just because they all agree on a sequence of events that make Harsden (and Stubbs, who seems to have been forgotten here) look bad is ad-hoc legislation. WP:BLP requires tight sourcing of all claims and respect of privacy, but it at no point requires that public, agreed-upon information from reputable sources has to be removed because it is unflattering to the subject. Another arbitrary ad-hoc criterion unsupported by policy and in ignorance of the facts is to require that this case has to set a legal precedent. There is no legal case, the parties agreed, a priori and a posteriori, to resolve the issue in mediation, and "legal precedent" has never been offered as a claim to notability. The claims were, in order, cause célèbre (media attention), resignation of the president of a major university and rewriting of procedures (institutional impact). Those claims were endorsed by the Afd and it is outside the purview of DRV to renege on those. It is within the purview of DRV to scrutinize SlimVirgin's deletion, and the way this task has been ignored is blatant. There is no single comment above that pinpoints an unsourced claim in the article, or provides evidence that a viewpoint held by a significant minority has been ignored or that private matter was made public by a Wikipedia editor. There is no scrutiny of her defense which amounts to "older versions of a different article used questionable sources", along with a number of insinuations about the motives of editors. Instead we get handwaving over unspecified notability issues and the proposal of a remedy that is outside the purview of DRV and GFDL. This review should be declared a mistrial and restarted, with a clear directive that DRV procedures be followed, policy breaches be pinpointed, and evidence be provided. In addition, several editors here owe Kla'quot an apology. If anyone is actually interested in the source material and can't access Newsbank or Lexis-Nexis, contact me. ~ trialsanderrors 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn per trialsanderrors, who absolutely nailed it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
restore article I wasn't involved in earlier rounds. It seems that a highly respected WP ed. and admin made an obviously wrong decision, for whatever reason. . The remedy against such decisions is of course this process, and the minimum that need be done is to restore the article, with an understanding that the repeated use of speedy process is not appropriate. Like any article affected by many hostile edits, the best procedure would be to recreate it from scratch. Presumably the article will then be submitted for AfD once again, but it is only 60 days since the previous AfD closed. I gather we have no remedy against multiple continuing attempts to find by chance an admin willing to close in the direction desired. Wouldn't a RfC on the article be the better choice? It should give a more definitive result. DGG 23:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]