Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 January 26
2007 January 28 >

27 January 2007

[edit]
Podróże z i pod prąd and Wszystko jedno – restored by deleting admin and merged to group by another Wikipedian. – GRBerry 01:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Podróże z i pod prąd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
Wszystko jedno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Studio albums by a notable band (Happysad) speedy deleted by Proto on the grounds of insufficient notability. Notability criteria guideline for music says that the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Jogers (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Blood Krupters – Deletion endorsed – Coredesat 18:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Blood Krupters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

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]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Janet Balaskas – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – trialsanderrors 21:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Janet Balaskas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

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]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Marsden-Donnelly harassment case – Overturn speedy deletion, retitle and list at AFD again. See the long form (6 paragraphs) of the closers comment within. As an editor, the article will also be stubbed before listing again. – GRBerry 07:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Long form of closer's comment:
Going strictly by Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Restoring the page (for admins), this should be sent to AFD again, as the article existed before the speedy deletion, because there is no consensus here to endorse the speedy deletion.

The larger editorial community would probably look at the article the same way they did when the last AFD pointed them at the ArbComm case - they came up with an overwhelming keep result. So we get a cycle of 1) speedy deletion, 2) deletion review overturn, 3) AFD keep, 1) speedy deletion, etc.... We've already been around the cycle once; this is the second time at deletion review. The last ArbComm decision came right in the middle of the AFD that was closed at keep, but what was going to happen was clear to a reader that choose to look even before the AFD started. The AFD result was also obvious at the time the ArbComm closed their case, but I find no evidence that the last deletion review and current AFD had been pointed out to them.

While the cycle is not as fast moving as a wheel war, this isn't much better either, and the cycle is the natural consequence of the ArbComm case. (Anyone who has previously undeleted or speedy deleted and repeats that action is warned that this could be considered a wheel war, including myself if we get a third cycle.) I therefore take guidance from the policy on wheel wars, that dispute resolution should be used as an attempt to break the cycle. There are too many parties (42 here alone, disregarding banned users) for one on one discussion to reach a decision. The normal forum for discussing article deletion is AfD, and nobody endorsed the one proposal to use a different forum, so that is where we will go.

There is fairly weak evidence here of a consensus that we should not have an article at this title, so moving to a new title is part of the close, but the specific title I choose is not. And the ArbComm case says that any editor can stub the articles related to RM. So the close here overturns the speedy deletion, as per the Undeletion policy and brings the article to AFD per both the Undeletion policy and the wheel war policy. I will then, as an editor, move the page to one of the possible better titles and dramatically trim down the article. After that, I will complete the close here by listing at AFD.

A possible compromise outcome that we might be better served by putting a paragraph or two into History of Simon Fraser University was discussed, and is one of the initially proposed RfC. Unfortunately, that one-edit stub would also start suffering undue weight problems and be at risk of failing to remain in a state satisfying WP:BLP if even two paragraphs from this was just dropped in there. Additionally, many of the later keep deleted opiners that said keep deleted per above without clarification thereby left it uncertain if they support or oppose this outcome. One even managed to say per multiple names, some of whom support and some of whom oppose this possible outcome. I hope that the AFD can clarify whether this idea is supported by consensus. GRBerry 07:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing in progress. Feel free to continue discussing at the bottom. GRBerry 02:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marsden-Donnelly harassment case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

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]see also [2][3], indicating that Arbcom had not asked for the article to be deleted. (I have replaced one of the links with a one showing more context, and removed an interpretation which has been controversial Kla'quot 08:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

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. (I've struck-out my vague POV, which is distracting the discussion from the question of how to apply Wikipedia policies for deletion and undeletion. Kla'quot 02:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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]


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]
  • 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]
In response to your question about scholarly critical review of the case: Reviews whose primary subject is this case include a 51-page position paper by the Fraser Institute (cited in the article) a position paper by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, and an article in Canada's oldest political magazine, Canadian Forum. The case was also one of many cases used to support the thesis of a 2004 book written by a criminology professor; this book itself has been reviewed enough to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for books. Let me know if you want me to email you with details. There is also the Phi Delta Kappan article that I mentioned in the nomination for this DRV. Kla'quot 18:09, 31 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]
  • 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 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]

  • 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]
The duty of anyone who encounters material of this nature to delete it arises from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There is no limit or restriction on deletion. Being based on exposure of an individual to opprobrium, it cannot be made into an acceptable article. Fred Bauder 18:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty blatant misreading of BLP. There is no "exposure to oppobrium", as you call it, the "exposure" happened in the unvisersity proceedings an in the national press. BLP allows for deletion of unsourced material, not for any material an editor might find objectionable. ~ trialsanderrors 18:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, it's not clear to me whether you're saying that the original sources or the article are based on exposure of an individual to opprobrium. It can't be the sources, because they were all written before Rachel Marsden's career began. The public had never heard of her before the story broke. As for the article, as long as it sticks closely to the sources (which it does) it should be OK. Kla'quot 06:50, 2 February 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]
  • 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]
  • When I was told on my talk page of a length reply to my post, I was expecting some concrete reason that might lead me to change my mind, not this bucketload of bluster and hysteria ("several editors here owe Kla'quot an apology"? o rly? I'll get my self-flagellation whip and my kow-towing kneepads) coupled with appeal to the imaginary WikiJudges that routinely overturn anything that wasn't done in process. If my reasoning is an 'Afd round 2', that's unfortunate, but if AfD had got it right, I would have been able to say 'endorse AfD', but they didn't, policy had to be put above process, and it has to be put above process here as well. None of the above changes the fact that this article is undue weight. Especially as long as the central Rachel Marsden article remains only slightly above a stub (currently six very short and loosely connected paragraphs), undeleting this two-page snigger would be ludicrous, and reverse all the effort put in by Arbcom and others into getting this small corner of Wikipedia into a respectable state of affairs. And probably after then as well. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The length of the Marsden article is entirely irrelevant. Not all actors in a public scandal have biographies beyond their involvement in the scandal. Undue weight characterizes the length of the article compared to the volume of reputable source material, and the inclusion of minority viewpoints. Per WP:BLP: In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. As it is now, the length of the article is at less than 5% of the available source material, and uses sources conservatively and neutrally. Your lack of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL is noted though. ~ trialsanderrors 19:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear, I've violated some acronyms. Please go ahead and note it, and have the imaginary WikiStenographer carbon copy your notes on my imaginary WikiContemptOfCourt to my office. My sister's hamster needs more bedding. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:39, 1 February 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]
  • Comment Participants in the prior deletion discussions have been notified. ~ trialsanderrors 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - let me get this straight: The article is debated at AfD, which rightly (and overwhelmingly) comes to a consensus that it is a keep. After long debates and strong consensus building, the article is speedily deleted despite not coming close to meeting any relevent criterion. I'm not sure why it's generated this much discussion when it is such a clear overturn as procedures were not only not followed, but circumvented to reach an erroneous conclusion against overwhelming consensus. WilyD 19:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The reason for the AfD being overwhelmingly "keep" was the large number of reliable sources verifying content, as well as establishing notability. It's not up to us to decide past events; our authority on history, events and notoriety is reliable sources and, as trialsanderrors pointed out, there's no reason to charge that The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, Maclean's or the Vancouver Sun are all inaccurate. We're heading into a double standard at WP if we make more stringent demands of verification from reliable sources and then do an about-face and suddendly start ignoring them. --Oakshade 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted per Sam Blanning above. A mes chers confrères canadiens: shrilly indignant lessons on the various importance of different news sources in the Canadian market is unhelpful, small-minded and missing the point. Eusebeus 20:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mind being called shrill, indignant, small-minded or missing the point, but I certainly take offense at being called Canadian. :-) I would go as far as claim that until three days ago, I had no knowledge of your country's existence. ~ trialsanderrors 23:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had looked at this deletion review and decided not to comment because I was torn. But then, because of my If by whiskey response to the previous DRV, I was asked to come here and comment. In for a penny, in for a pound I guess. Thinking about this some, it seems there are sufficient sources that establish notability. Good God, that's an understatement. There are copious sources on this, and multiple, independent coverage is the standard, rather than more subjective criteria, such as whether something sets a significant legal precedent or not. But the Arbcom case contained this remedy:

2) 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. Removal of poorly sourced negative information or of blocks of grossly unbalanced negative material is not subject to the three revert rule. Such material may be removed without limit.

Pass 6-0 at 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
So, these articles can be created, then an administrator can determine that they violate WP:BLP and delete them. That decision can then be brought here. If deletion is upheld, the article can be created again (using those sources trialsanderrors talks about), and then can be... Well, you get the point. We need to have an article on Rachel Marsden. The harrassment case needs to be covered as part of the History of Simon Fraser University. We don't really need a separate article on this topic. This current debate is simply the continuation of the ArbCom case by other means. A possible way to resolve this is the Brian Peppers solution: delete and salt for a year. Maybe then tempers will have cooled down. JChap2007 20:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for summarizing the procedure. So the question which still has to be answered is: Which statement within the deleted article failed WP:BLP, i.e. was potentially slanderous and unsourced? Alternatively, which favorable sources have been ignored in favor of other, unfavorable sources? ~ trialsanderrors 21:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, my point had more to do with how this article was subject to serial creation and deletion because there are arguable points on each side. As you, quite rightly pointed out, there are numerous sources. But Sam believes that there is an undue weight problem: WP's coverage of Marsden is mostly about the sexual harrassment case. How much weight to assign to various incidents in a person's life when writing an article about here is inherently a subjective judgement, usually solved by compromise. No one here is interested in compromising, however. They're primarily interested in proving they were right. And the background, procedures and ArbCom remedies surrounding this virtually guarantee serial recreation and deletion. JChap2007 21:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be an odd perception that the case is about Marsden, which might be due to the inordinate attention her article has received at ArbCom. The article is about Marsden, Donnelly, Stubbs, SFU, and other players, all of which have a right to unbiased representation. Since there were adversaries, all biased information in favor of Marsden is unfavorbale against Donnelly, etc. That's why it's very important to keep those two things separate. The weight of this case will undoubtedly unbalance any ancillary article it's included in, although History of Simon Fraser University might be the closest match. But that's a notability dispute which is tangential. The primary dispute is about the sources included by bucketsofg, and no matter how they're refactored into different articles, I haven't seen an argument (other than Fred Bauder's) that there is policy which allows for the removal of reputable sources. Even WP:BLP is adamant that sourcing is paramount. ~ trialsanderrors 21:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-one here is interested in compromising? The fact that the Rachel Marsden article is intentionally a stub is a good example of a compromise. Here, I have agreed to moving the article, and so has trialsanderrors. I have indicated that I am willing to seriously discuss merging the two articles. I have suggested expanding the article so that it does not focus so much on the individuals. I have raised no objections to ideas for rewriting the article, which I think are mostly good but do not belong in this DRV. In summary, I have agreed to at least discuss just about everything except keeping this article deleted when there is no basis in policy for doing so. Kla'quot 07:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely the case involves more people than just Marsden. I would argue that they don't have any "right" to representation or coverage here, only that if we do cover them they have the right to be treated fairly (meaning any information be in compliance with WP:BLP with no undue weight given to the facts favorable or unfavorable to any side). It is still unclear to me why we need a separate article to do that. And I would note that the ArbCom's decision applies to any article "related to Rachel Marsden." Whether or not the original case was actually about Marsden, it is clear that the ArbCom remedy would apply to this article. Much of the continuing interest in the case (both on-and-off wiki) does seem related to her involvement. The irony is just too delicious: a Canadian version of Ann Coulter was involved in beyond-Oleanna behaviour in a sexual harrassment case. In the end, it's a simple cost-benefit analysis: the benefit is an article focussing on a scandal involving a minor media celebrity, the cost is continued enormous disruption. I say, there is no deadline here. Let's do the article in a year. We are unlikely to get anything stable in the time being. JChap2007 00:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, and I don't think they particularly like to be included. The right is that of the Wikipedia editor in return for establishing notability and providing a fair set of reputable sources and derives from our policies. I don't think a year will change anything. The precedent that is being established here that if you care enough about the article to run through the gauntlet erected to protect it from being recreated then you must have invidious motives will not go away. ~ trialsanderrors 00:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging from its history, the content of the article had been stable in the months before it was deleted, except for vandalism. I can find no version that has any kind of "disputed" template on it. There were no comments at all on the Talk page between March and December of last year. The number of comments on the Talk page that are not part of deletion discussions is exactly one, and it's unsigned. (There is also some relevant discussion in the archives of Talk:Rachel Marsden from last spring.) The only thing unstable about this article is its existence. This may set some kind of record for being the most undisputed page to ever earn comments from Arbcom. And please see the humour in this: The article's second edit was a stub-sort by none other than Sam Blanning. Kla'quot 07:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn due to previous AfDs, the fact that this story has had national press attention and the fact that the effects as a result of this story have been significant. Also, it's verifiable and the sources (both in number and by type, as many of them are national news outlets) certainly make this article notable. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 21:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, per Bauder and Blanning. Proto::► 21:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query The petitioner for deletion review writes 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. I've looked at the full text of this article (available through a free trial of High Beam[16]), and I don't see anything that corresponds with "far-reaching social impact". There's this line "Clearly, the Marsden/Donnelly case has been one of the more notorious sexual harassment fiascos in Canada, and it sent strong signals about the many inequities in the handling of sexual harassment cases by Canadian universities" (and well there's this too: "Simon Fraser's sensational case has all the makings of an erotic made-for-TV movie"). But the only substantive impacts due to the case described by the article appear to be localized to Simon Fraser University. ("Strong signals" is too vague and insubstantial). The article starts out by suggesting that the Simon Fraser case belongs to sexual harrassment policy problem trend in British Columbia universities that were first marked by two earlier (1993 and 1995 - the Marsen case was in 1997) cases at the University of Victoria and the University of British Columbia. The article also refers to coverage in the Canadian media but not to international coverage. Can the petitioner come up with sources showing "far-reaching social impact" as well as the international prominence (a "cause célèbre") claimed but not proven in the Marsden case article? (The only international coverage (excluding general newswire reports) I can find on this case is a "Letter from Canada" opinion column in the Lifestyle section of the Malaysian New Straits Times.). Bwithh 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there is much evidence for the international cause célèbre, although I found a few more international sources (Wash Times, grrr). This certainly needs to be stricken from the claim to notability: The case became a cause célèbre both in Canada and internationally because of the salaciousness of the details, the topicality of sexual harassment, and the procedures for investigating it. The case led to the resignation of SFU President John Stubbs and a rewriting of procedures for investigating allegations of sexual harassment. The rest, as far I can tell, is accurate. So social impact seems to be in line with other cases in List of academic scandals and Category:Scandals, especially the Duke lacrosse case, probably the closest contemporary match. ~ trialsanderrors 23:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the institutional social impact localized to Simon Fraser. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (still thinking) Bwithh 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've struck the "far-reaching" part of my nomination, as it's a vague statement that can't be proven one way or the other, and it's irrelevant to DRV. The original reasoning beind my comment came from two articles. In one, the Canadian Association of University Teachers said, "Many commentators noted that universities across the country were likely to reconsider their sexual harassment policies as a consequence of this case." Another, published by the Hamilton Spectator in 1998, was entirely devoted to the effects of the case on feminism and the status of women. One quote "But the message to women on campuses was clear -- for God's sake, if you're being sexually harassed, keep it to yourself. That message was clear to the women at SFU, where complaints dropped by 80 percent. " The "international cause célèbre" claim doesn't come from me and I doubt it's accurate. Kla'quot 07:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clayquot, I'm concerned that your comment implies you feel this article is important because the case sent the message to women that "if you're being sexually harassed, keep it to yourself." But your interest in this has been to criticize, or even attack, the woman who made the complaint. That's why a number of people have felt uncomfortable, and it's why the BLP issue kicked in: the undue weight issue. And you're right: the case was neither far-reaching nor did it have any international impact as I believe was claimed at one point. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a feminist woman quoting another feminist woman writer who made the comment in her pro-feminist article. You are making a sly, hurtful, entirely unfounded, and completely false insinuation that I want to keep this article in order to discourage reporting of sexual harassment claims. It is a personal attack. I have never edited the article whose deletion we are reviewing here, and only started editing Rachel Marsden (check my contributions to see if they violate BLP) after you and Arthur Ellis's sockpuppet made similar blanket allegations on its Talk page and drove off most of the men. Kla'quot 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn without prejudice against future afds; recommend toning down of article claims I'm not convinced that the article needed to be speedy deleted under WP:BLP, which appears to be the critical issue here (rather than the case for encyclopedic notability outlined by Kla'quot. Trialsanderrors' point that the case involves SFU, Donnelly and John Stubbs not just Marsden is a good one. I strongly suggest that this article's unsourced claims to importance be referenced or removed. I'm not yet convinced by the notability case for a separate article on this subject and expect to vote for a merge of cut-down content in a potential future afd of this article Bwithh 23:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to draw the attention of readers to User Talk:LotusLander2006. CJCurrie 02:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, or rather accept community decision to keep per AfD consensus and WP:NOT censored. WP:BLP applies to unsourced negative information, not sourced and correct negative information which is unflattering. If the article's a POV/BLP problem, full-protect a fully-sourced NPOV version until both sides hash that out, but don't censor it. Seraphimblade 08:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse consensus AfD closure, overturn unilateral deletion as per trialanderrors. --Duke of Duchess Street 14:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per previous community decisions and per Trialsanderrors above.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The idea that this article, just by existence, fails NPOV is bizarre. Applying this logic to a more internationally well-known incident, it's like saying the existence of Lewinsky scandal fails NPOV because it dwells on a single unflattering incident in the life of Monica Lewinsky. Aside from the identity of the contributors, zero evidence has been given that the article is itself biased. If you have to look at the names of contributors in order to tell that an article may be biased, that is the very definition of an NPOV article.
I do think the idea of deleting articles on trivial or ephemeral news events that could damage living people is a reasonable one, and notability guidelines for events could be rewritten to say so. However, it is very unlikely that the community would accept jacking up the notability bar high enough to justify deleting this article. Will we require editorials in the national newspaper of record? Multiple Google Scholar results? If we did, it still would not be high enough to have this article deleted.
I completely agree that it is important to avoid giving the appearance of creating an attack page. It is equally important that we avoid the appearance of whitewashing history in order to protect political interests. And it's hard to think of a more blatant way give that impression than to circumvent our own policies so we can suppress information unflattering to someone who was once asked to run for office by the party currently governing the country. Kla'quot 06:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Trialsanderrors analysis. Catchpole 09:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per trialsanderrors. As I said in the AfD, the article has the potential to be NPOV, I don't see why badly sourced POV nonsense warrants deletion of the article, as opposed to the bad material. Stubify is necessary, but deletion is an overreaction. Lankiveil 11:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • I participated in the most recent AfD debate, and at the time felt that the article was suitable for retention, largely on the grounds that it appeared to be a moderately well-known case in Canada, and appeared to have adequate references. For background it may be useful to note that I am not Canadian, nor had I heard of this case before the AfD debate. I have now reviewed the article, and the various debates about it, paying particular attention to privacy concerns, the risk of libel, and the risk of misrepresentation of the points of view of the various parties in the case. In my comments in the AfD debate I noted that I would have preferred the article to have as little in the way of salacious comment as possible.
I participate in a large number of AfD debates - working on such debates is, in fact, my principal contribution to Wikipedia - and the first questions I ask of articles under review for deletion are the simple ones of notability and supporting references/sources. It seems to me that there is clear evidence that references/sources for this topic are adequate, and when I search for this subject on the internet there is prima facie evidence of notability: the case made the news, and had a significant impact on the people involved and the university in question. Policies were changed, and actions performed or reversed, as a result of this case. Broadly, I feel that this case should therefore be covered by Wikipedia.
The case itself does not reflect well on the participants. Given the kind of case, the allegations made and the participants' previous relationship ( the earlier case involving a junior team ) this is not surprising. Unfortunately, these items are all matters of verifiable fact, and it appears to possible to document them all, along with other substantive matters of fact, in a NPOV way. I wish to support and re-iterate a comment made above by Kla'quot: "The idea that this article, just by existence, fails NPOV is bizarre." I believe it is quite possible to write articles on court cases in a way that ensures a balanced presentation of the facts: in fact, we already have many cases covered in Wikipedia.
One question that has been discussed is the possibility of merging this article with the article on Rachel Marsden. I feel this would be inappropriate, as she was not the only participant in the case, and in the interests of balance we should not seek to give any one participant in the case undue prominence or weight. That Ms Marsden has gone on to a successful career and attained notability in her own right is certainly reason for her to have her own article, but as I understand it the events of this case, its reasons for notability, and the publication of the relevant sources all pre-date her successful public career.
Finally, on the question of the article name, I wish to follow the guidance given by my colleagues in these debates ( I am "assuming good faith" in accepting this guidance ) and suggest that the article be renamed from "Marsden-Donnelly Harassment Case" to "Marsden-Donnelly Case", if this is indeed our preferred form for such case names.
In conclusion, is seems to me ( after some fairly exhaustive and exhausting reading ) that: (1) the case is notable and can be adequately documented; (2) the case can be presented in an NPOV and non-salacious way; and, (3) it is coincidental ( that is, was not caused by her participation in this case ) that Ms Marsden has found subsequent fame in an unrelated field. Accordingly, I advocate that we Retain this article, that we Protect against deletion without further discussion, that we Review for bias, and edit appropriately to remove POV items, and finally that we Rename as "Marsden-Donnelly Case".
Please let me know if I can make any further contribution. WMMartin 14:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - WP:BLP is not to be trifled with, and whether you find your self in opposition or support of this person, WP articles have to hold themselves to a high standard. --Leifern 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Sam Blanning and Thatcher131. Any encyclopaedic [verifiable] information should be included in the main article, and heed payed to BLP. TewfikTalk 16:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted I've been following this case since it was at arbcom, though I don't believe I ever commented about it before now. This case is by no means clear cut, and there's right on both sides of the debate above. Having said that, though, a blow-by-blow description of what was ultimately a very minor scandal is, well, something of an "undue weight fork," to coin a phrase. A scandal that brings down the president of a country is quite a bit different from one that brings down the president of a university. IronDuke 17:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I didn't realize you're still around. So what exactly is the source of your objection to the article? BLP clearly, as discussed above, does not state that "we cannot have articles that present living people in a negative light". It states "we cannot have unsourced, poorly sourced or unduly unbalanced articles on events that present living people in a negative light". I have no idea where this thing got so completely out of control that people have to make those extraordinary and unsubstantiated claims. This is a mid-level scandal at a fairly prominent Canadian university that never got A1 frontpage 84pt font headline billing, but was still covered extensively by all the major Canadian news outlets over an extended period of time and still reverberates through the press. As I posted on JChap's talk page, I polled four Canadian friends about Marsden, and three of them actively remembered the case. So this is far from obscure, and we certainly don't have a policy called WP:LETSLEEPINGDOGSLIE. Not to toot my own horn here, but I would claim that I would be a perfect candidate to edit an article on such a topic. I know fuck-all about Canadian politics or punditry, I pass the WP:FORGET test because I have never even heard of the case or the participants before. I even managed to be accused of having both a left and a right wing bias in my editing history here. Now after having read some 30,000 words on the case if I wanted to create such an article it wouldn't look all that different from the one we're discussing here, maybe with some of the claims about impact toned down and more direct quotes and claims about events double-sourced. The players are certainly not portrayed in an unduly negative light, there is far worse in the source material (from top-level newspapers, not the tabloids which I'm sure had a go at it). Right now it's at less 3% of the coverage available to me, so it's probably at less than 1% of the actual coverage. And lastly our respnsibility is not to the participants in the case but to our readers who have come to expect Wikipedia to be the first port of call on dispassionate and accurate information about noteworthy events including scandals, especially if the primary sources are hidden behind paywalls. ~ trialsanderrors 18:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The arguments have been made by many others already, T&E, so take a look above for the details. In summary, she's borderline notable. We therefore don't need two articles on her; and we need to pay heed to the undue weight issue, which is very pressing in this case, because very little biographical material exists about her, given her borderline notability. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an argument for deletion of the Marsden bio, as happened to the Donnelly bio. He was also considered non-notable outside the case, so any bio on him would be unduly biased by the discussion of the case. (Also technically that was a prodded deletion.) The idea that the case should be discussed on the Marsden bio creates undue weight, because she was only one of four players in the case. The case for all I can tell should be discussed in an article titled "1997 Simon Fraser University harassment scandal" or somesuch, but that's a page move issue. ~ trialsanderrors 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument misses the point. Lots of biographical material has been published about Lewinsky, because she is truly notable, notwithstanding that she become notable over an arguably negative issue. With Marsden, very little is known about her, because she's borderline notable, so the undue weight issue of the negative material is overwhelming. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing in progress. Please add any additional comments below this line of text. GRBerry 02:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pawn Game – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 02:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pawn Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Well written real page, is notable. It was deleted due to (nn web) I am new to wikipedia, so please forgive the quality of what I am doing. Pawn Game I believe is a notable game, and it worthy of staying up. Just like Stick arena is because they are basically the same thing. it is a game that is created and is playable, forums, domain etc. I will keep it updated. I do not know what to say? I am new, but I love wikipedia, but this is my first ever created submission, besides minor edits, etc.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I see no claim of significance or importance in the article, which makes deletion under WP:CSD#A7 legitimate. I see no evidence in the article or appeal that anyone unrelated to the game has published anything in a reliable source about it. I do see the version release notes, which are not encyclopedia content. I do see a complete staff list, which is not encyclopedia content. I do see a complete list of weapons and ranks, again not encyclopedia content. If there are multiple reliable source publications by people independent of the game about it, try writing a new article in accordance with the suggestions at Wikipedia:Amnesia test, using only those independent publications. If that is a decent article, then fill it out with encyclopedic content from the game's published documents, not with game guide materials. The old article will not be a helpful starting point as no independent sources were used and too much of the content does not belong in an encyclopedia. GRBerry 02:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as per GRBerry. --Duke of Duchess Street 14:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_27&oldid=1142605305"