Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Openshaw Internet statements
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Openshaw Internet statements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
A British judge in a not-so-bright moment made a remark that implied he didn't understand the internet. The press laughed at him for a few days. Notable? Well, yes it deserves a line in his biography, which it has, but what the blazing hell is the point in an article which simply records the press laughing and what they said. Trivial, unimportant, and serves only to humiliate a man for a silly remark. No, I'm not advocating we censor it, we've recorded it in a sentence in his bio and that's enough. -Docg 15:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Cited, relevant and too bulky for the main article. Pedro | Chat 15:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Delete: Too bulky for the main article?? The main article is five sentences long, including a precis of this incident. There's nowhere remotely enough content to warrant a separate article for this fellow's bon mot. RGTraynor 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We are writing an encyclopedia, not a collection of funny quotations. An encyclopedia does not need to have a separate article about every silly thing every public official ever said which got reported in the news. If there were an article like "The internet in popular culture" this could be merged to it, but I couldn't find one. Ted Stevens comment about it being a bunch of tubes could go there too. Delete per WP:NOT : "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:" "...The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." Edison 15:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Hmm, I'm not sure that Peter Openshaw merits an article, but given the shortness of the one he has now, if he does, this can easily be merged with it. FrozenPurpleCube 16:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely not. A long dialogue on one passing remark would unbalance that article. It is already briefly mentioned there.--Docg 16:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome to modify the extent of the merge if you feel it's appropriate. Or add more content actually about this person. I think a short line is actually more misleading than giving things in a broader context, but then, I'm not even sure he should have an article. If he does though, then the contents of it are an editing question not best answered on AFD. In fact, that seems to be the problem here, rather than this article being a problem, it's a content issue. FrozenPurpleCube 16:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I nominated it as I wish this article deleted. The 'line' in the bio currently is fine.--Docg 16:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be slightly more convinced of that if it weren't for the fact that this article was apparently created as a result of discussion that lead to splitting. Now the splitting is being opposed. But you still accept coverage of the incident as valid. Sorry, but you're in the wrong place. This is a editing dispute. The question here is not whether or not this subject should be covered, but how and where. That's not a deletion question. FrozenPurpleCube 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't call me a liar please. I've explained my motives - they are as I have said. If you're not willing to assume good faith thatis not my problem. I've taken no part in any content dispute on another article - so please do your homework before assuming bad faith and patronising me.--Docg 19:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said you were a liar? You can be wrong without being intentionally deceitful. I think you're mistaken in your actions, and choosing the wrong method to resolve this concern. If this offends you, I am sorry if it was because I wrote things in a manner which was unclear, but adopting an increasingly hostile attitude on your part isn't going to be persuasive either. Rather the opposite. I think you've chosen the wrong method to resolve this dispute. Nothing more. FrozenPurpleCube 21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I overreacted. Bad day - no excuse. But I explained my motives and you appeared to imply you were 'unconvinced' - and that I was in an 'editing dispute,' which I am not. I am here because I wish this article deleted, as simple as that. I'm not (and never have been) in an editing dispute, because I am content with the content of the other article. I really can't understand your point, this is a deletion debate - I nominated the article for deletion.--Docg 21:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You accept that this information can be covered on the judge's individual page. Thus the question is not whether or not this subject is notable, but the extent of the coverage. Since this article doesn't have any false information, there is no reason to delete. Settle this with a discussion as to the content of the judge's article. You may be satisfied with the content of it as now. But many comments in this discussion indicate others do not feel the same. I certainly don't. It's not fine, and if anything, it's lacking in needed substance and context. If you don't agree, well, that's fine, but AFD is not the place to do it. Try WP:DR instead. FrozenPurpleCube 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Afd IS precisely the place for me to ask for this ridiculous article to be deleted. You are of course entitled to disagree with the desire to delete it. So, we have a deletion debate, which is what we are doing.--Docg 22:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing ridiculous about this article. It's sourced, it's reasonably well-written, and it's not about something of minor importance. There are many ridiculous articles on Wikipedia which should be deleted, but when you even accept that basis for the content is reasonable to include on the person's page, well, I don't see a good case for it being ridiculous. Again, I think it would be better if perhaps you might consider a different method to get the level of coverage to be appropriate than AFD. Otherwise people will just add the content to the original page and you're back where you started. Not what I'd call effective at resolving the dispute. FrozenPurpleCube 23:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We disagree about this article. But I can't think of a better way for me to ask for it to be deleted than afd. Let's wait and see if others agree. I'm happy to make my case and abide by consensus here.--Docg 23:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can think of several ways to deal with this issue, such as engaging in a discussion on the talk page, and working on developing consensus for the level of coverage on the main article that everybody agrees with. It does seem that most folks agree that covering this on the person's article is appropriate, but the only concern is balance. Well, my suggested solution is to find more things to write about the judge. Surely there's something more to be said about him? If not, maybe his entire article ought to be deleted. I'm not at all convinced every judge who makes the news once or twice should have an article. FrozenPurpleCube 23:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is highly unlikely there will be more information about some random judge. If you want to nominate that for deletion, you'll have my support.--Docg 23:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no immediate desire to do so, given that a discussion was just recently closed and this related discussion is ongoing. Perhaps at some later date if no sources for other information can be found as to his notability. FrozenPurpleCube 23:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is highly unlikely there will be more information about some random judge. If you want to nominate that for deletion, you'll have my support.--Docg 23:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can think of several ways to deal with this issue, such as engaging in a discussion on the talk page, and working on developing consensus for the level of coverage on the main article that everybody agrees with. It does seem that most folks agree that covering this on the person's article is appropriate, but the only concern is balance. Well, my suggested solution is to find more things to write about the judge. Surely there's something more to be said about him? If not, maybe his entire article ought to be deleted. I'm not at all convinced every judge who makes the news once or twice should have an article. FrozenPurpleCube 23:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We disagree about this article. But I can't think of a better way for me to ask for it to be deleted than afd. Let's wait and see if others agree. I'm happy to make my case and abide by consensus here.--Docg 23:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing ridiculous about this article. It's sourced, it's reasonably well-written, and it's not about something of minor importance. There are many ridiculous articles on Wikipedia which should be deleted, but when you even accept that basis for the content is reasonable to include on the person's page, well, I don't see a good case for it being ridiculous. Again, I think it would be better if perhaps you might consider a different method to get the level of coverage to be appropriate than AFD. Otherwise people will just add the content to the original page and you're back where you started. Not what I'd call effective at resolving the dispute. FrozenPurpleCube 23:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Afd IS precisely the place for me to ask for this ridiculous article to be deleted. You are of course entitled to disagree with the desire to delete it. So, we have a deletion debate, which is what we are doing.--Docg 22:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You accept that this information can be covered on the judge's individual page. Thus the question is not whether or not this subject is notable, but the extent of the coverage. Since this article doesn't have any false information, there is no reason to delete. Settle this with a discussion as to the content of the judge's article. You may be satisfied with the content of it as now. But many comments in this discussion indicate others do not feel the same. I certainly don't. It's not fine, and if anything, it's lacking in needed substance and context. If you don't agree, well, that's fine, but AFD is not the place to do it. Try WP:DR instead. FrozenPurpleCube 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I overreacted. Bad day - no excuse. But I explained my motives and you appeared to imply you were 'unconvinced' - and that I was in an 'editing dispute,' which I am not. I am here because I wish this article deleted, as simple as that. I'm not (and never have been) in an editing dispute, because I am content with the content of the other article. I really can't understand your point, this is a deletion debate - I nominated the article for deletion.--Docg 21:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said you were a liar? You can be wrong without being intentionally deceitful. I think you're mistaken in your actions, and choosing the wrong method to resolve this concern. If this offends you, I am sorry if it was because I wrote things in a manner which was unclear, but adopting an increasingly hostile attitude on your part isn't going to be persuasive either. Rather the opposite. I think you've chosen the wrong method to resolve this dispute. Nothing more. FrozenPurpleCube 21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't call me a liar please. I've explained my motives - they are as I have said. If you're not willing to assume good faith thatis not my problem. I've taken no part in any content dispute on another article - so please do your homework before assuming bad faith and patronising me.--Docg 19:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be slightly more convinced of that if it weren't for the fact that this article was apparently created as a result of discussion that lead to splitting. Now the splitting is being opposed. But you still accept coverage of the incident as valid. Sorry, but you're in the wrong place. This is a editing dispute. The question here is not whether or not this subject should be covered, but how and where. That's not a deletion question. FrozenPurpleCube 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I nominated it as I wish this article deleted. The 'line' in the bio currently is fine.--Docg 16:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome to modify the extent of the merge if you feel it's appropriate. Or add more content actually about this person. I think a short line is actually more misleading than giving things in a broader context, but then, I'm not even sure he should have an article. If he does though, then the contents of it are an editing question not best answered on AFD. In fact, that seems to be the problem here, rather than this article being a problem, it's a content issue. FrozenPurpleCube 16:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely not. A long dialogue on one passing remark would unbalance that article. It is already briefly mentioned there.--Docg 16:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The argument was made on the Openshaw article that we should write articles on the notable quote, not the person who made it. Splitting it off was an attempt to make it good with WP:BLP. While he may very well be notable enough for his own article, if we merge this back in, it dominates the whole article and obscures whatever other notability he has (for example, being part of the first husband and wife to be sworn in as High Court Justices on the same day).--SarekOfVulcan 16:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- further comment Why do we need more than a two sentence mention of this? How is are the details of what case he said this in, and in what context relevant? This is just something the media picked up on as an example of Judges being out of touch. Delete this - mention it in his article (as we do) - perhaps mention it in passing in a criticism section on the British Judiciary, or as an example on Internet ignorance - but other than as a passing remark in his bio - or an example elsewhere, the incident is not noteworthy. {{WP:NOT]] a newspaper.--Docg 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this crap. This is not a series of tubes, we have plenty pf material to draw on if we want to write an article on satirical stereotypes of British judges' lack of appreciation of popular culture ("a popular beat combo, m'lud") but this is just a hatchet job. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, though Guy beat me to the punchline :/ Nothing here that isn't already in the bio, redundant and nothing more here worth merging. Arkyan • (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this. It's possible that some of the references could be smerged into the article on the judge, but then again, this is material comprised on "silly season" newspaper articles. --Tony Sidaway 17:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Cornea 17:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#INFO #10. Deor 18:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into his article, then expand it so it doesn't seem like such an attack page. Google News shows the story to have been carried in a jaw-dropping 98(!!) news outlets worldwide, and a further search of the archives shows he's been involved with a number of major newsworthy cases in the past, so a decent article on him without undue weight on one dumb statement should be possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge is the worst possible outcome - the incident is covered already in the bio and one comment a man made once in his life does not deserve any more mention that that. The rest is media silliness.--Docg 19:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This isn't encyclopedia content. Capmango 19:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Given that this is nicely sourced, the obvious solution is to merge, because the incident is not covered adequately in the bio. If not possible then Keep. --JJay 19:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is part of the larger issue of internet governance and the belief of many that people in power lack sufficient knowledge about the internet to govern it well. Wikipedia works by the incremental addition of sourceable neutral information, which is what the contents of this article are. It is not good for wikipedia to demand that all additions should be finished polished articles or even that they be given the best possible title at first. This information should be kept. It may be best to merge it someday with another article as mentioned by some here; maybe even an article unwritten as yet. Deleting unbiased sourced information on a topic of public importance, even though it only touches on that issue in its last paragraph, is unwarrented. Let wikipedia continue to grow in increments. Deleting the increments by which wikipedia grows hurts wikipedia. WAS 4.250 00:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not only is this too ridiculously minor to deserve a stand-alone article, it's probably too ridiculously minor to appear in the man's biography. --Calton | Talk 01:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my arguments on the archived WP:NOTNEWS talkpage. It fails the "lasting historical significance" test I use for news events. It does not belong in an encyclopedia, which exists to document things of lasting historical importance. Put the quotes on Wikiquote if they're not there already. Hardly seems to merit a mention on the main bio page either (for me at least). Zunaid©® 08:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. These remakrs have absolutely no historical significance and do not deserve a page here. Indrian 09:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is essentially a quoation farm. Maybe it would be better off at wikiquote. -- Whpq 17:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.