Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Roman Polanski petition

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 redirect. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free Roman Polanski petition

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Weakly cited, The article is not a BLP but all the people on the list are living people Off2riorob (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A petition signed by famous people is not notable. Reywas92^Talk 03:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the rush. Why is this posted moments after asking for sources on a BLPN ... and I said I was looking? [~http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-petition Start here at the Guardian] Proofreader77 (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of news mentions of the petition. NYT Op ed mentions it ... It's a notable petition. Still looking. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notable petition (well covered by media) ... (including someone removing their name, notably, I believe) ... Will also be notable for Wikipedia leaping to delete it. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emma Thompson notably removed her name from it. Remember? Hmmm ... Maybe this can be raised to WP:FA. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Holiday season ... Will turn into article later. (I need to do some article creation anyway.) I assure you this petition is notable - oft-mentioned in the media. A symbol in the "cultural divide." Polanski is a big story. Those who support him are reviled for it. That is notable. Thompson pressured to remove her hame is notable ... why she would be particularly susceptible to pressure on this matter ... is notable. Interesting article to come. But wouldn't have thought about it without this nomination — with fairly predictable outcome. :-) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP, we need extra high quality sources. What I see is a plain list of names, with no other identification. Even if we assume the names are correct spelling-wise, how do we know they are the same people wiki-linked to? There are no dates of birth, or other corroborating data to confirm the ID. Therefore, BLP requires removal of the names pending positive verification. And the list, with or without the names, is a minor news item, not an encyclopedia article. Crum375 (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The petition itself may, and I stress may be notable, but there is zero confirmation that the individuals who have "signed" it are who they purport to be - that's the BLP issue. Strip out the names and what's left? "There is an online petition signed by some people who may or may not be who they say they are." ukexpat (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a classic case of WP:SOAP. Our "article" is not about the petition, it is the petition, and appears to be here for the purpose of casting shame on the signatories. I think they should be ashamed, but that's not what Wikipedia is about. Perhaps this can be replaced by a properly sourced article that goes in-depth about the petition and the reaction it caused, but the current article seems close to useless for getting to that point. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Administrator making WP:SOAP/WP:NOTFORUM comment about petition, calling article WP:SOAP. Delicious, irony. But yes, there needs to be an article there ... But the removal has to do with things other than it not being up to snuff yet. Like comment above illustrates: "I think they should be ashamed of themselves." (Suggest the honorable administrator reconsider their comments on this matter and perhaps strike phrasing which may not be appropriate. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You want "policy"? How about undue weight? Why does this merit more than one line in the Polanski article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion pages such as this one are appropriate places to express opinions. Wikipedia articles are not. Is that difficult to understand? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's getting whomped here, so he's grasping at any straw. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Il garbagio. The presence of Woody Allen's name renders it satirical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or, if the petition has to be kept, merge it with the article on the Polanski's sex abuse scandal. As is, the article violates the list policy. Tangurena (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advise all who participate in this AfD, remember WP:NOTFORUM. Policy rationale only.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofreader77 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 18 December 2009

Redirect to Roman Polanski sexual abuse case#Reactions to the arrest where the petition is already mentioned and cited. The petition is merely an aspect of the reaction to the case and does not need its own separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Metropolitan90. The petition is notable, and its existence and notability can be well documented in reliable sources - some of which are provided here. But the list of names is problematic, and does hint at UNDUE weight. The better course, I think, would be to expand the section of the Polanski case article dealing with overall reactions to the case in general (the petition being a prominent element of that reaction). That said, this is a reasonable search term, thought maybe without the quotes, so a redirect is not out of line. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree with Metropolitan90 above. (And UltraExactZZ after EC). Proper citations can be used to mention the petition in the proper article, but I don't see the coverage of the petition itself to justify a standalone article.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Does the petition merit a line in the encyclopedia? Yes. An article? Hardly. bd2412 T 18:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that there are more issues with the list as regards BLP issues, we can not be sure that the list is correct at all, I have found articles talking about people removing or attempting to remove thier name, of the lists that are on sources I have yet to find two of the lists that are the same, and I have not as yet seen a major publication that has actually printed the names from the list, that quality sources that I have seen have reported partial lists with the names of people from whom they have got a clear verbal comfirmation from the subject that they indeed sign the list, this list is more trouble than it is worth, and a redirect is troublesome for these reasons. Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - if someone searches for the petition, and information about the petition is in the Roman Polanski sexual abuse case article (really, isn't there a better name for that one?), then it's a reasonable redirect. I don't suggest that we move the list to that article as well, quite the opposite - the list needs to go. But that doesn't mean that the fact that a petition exists is not worth mention, especially since there are multiple reliable sources that document its notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I have missunderstood the redirect option, if this list is removed then I am fine with that. It is the reliability of the exact names on the list and the quality of the citations supporting the names that I find troublesome. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. To Off2riorob: yes, the list will be removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Metropolitan90, and others, who get it exactly right. It's worth a line in the main article; no more. TJRC (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per all above. (But may yet attempt to create WP:FA at redirect ... in the distant future. lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per above. Tempted to WP:IAR and WP:SNOW close this... TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please do not redirect. This is an implausible and very badly formed title, especially with the quotation marks. Reywas92^Talk 04:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is so true.. Off2riorob (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that. lol What about:

Free Roman Polanski petition
Petition to free Roman Polanski
Filmartists petition to free Roman Polanski
Free Roman Polanski (petition)

Yes, the quotes must go. So, do we move after the vote concludes, or before? Proofreader77 (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move it to the first one, and create the others as redirects. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: moved and adjusted links to title version #1. If I shouldn't have, somebody fix it. Or tell me to. If universe implodes due to change, nice knowing you. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Proofreader, is it time to close this as redirect, it seems that way to me. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just realized ... Does the history get wiped, and a fresh start created for the redirect? (That would take an admin). Or do we just wipe the page, and leave history there. (I'm guessing we need a history-zapping bit lol, but what do I know?) Not that this is closed or anything. lol Proofreader77 (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless something special is done, the history stays, and just the current revision is the redirect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any cases when they wipe the history? (I'm just pondering if this is done with a non-admin, close ... can everything be done without a bit?) Proofreader77 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaping to WP:SNOW ... already redirected. lol Anyone know how to do the template up top? :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You arcjhive this and.its available to read if required, .. Off2riorob (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]