- Vicki Iseman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Closed as no consensus despite very well supported BLP-based case for deletion. Closing admin has discussed and defended the close and recommends review [2]. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. My personal view is that closures should follow the rough editorial consensus absent compelling reasons to do otherwise. This AfD was fairly straight-forward, there was no shortage of input, there was almost no canvassing/sockpuppeting, and the arguments for deletion were IMO reasonable but indecisive. WP:ONEEVENT references seem rather strenuous considering the significance of the event. — xDanielx T/C\R 07:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since John McCain lobbyist controversy exists, the "significance of the event" argument doesn't hold -- all significant information about that event can go into that article. There is no reason to override WP:ONEEVENT or the other aspects of WP:BLP that directly apply here and have never been shot down by any Keep arguments. I made detailed, very explicit arguments at AfD because a majority didn't seem to be listening to the WP:BLP arguments. That may have been because WP:BLP1E (link corrected; time stamp below) no longer links to WP:BLP, but rather to WP:BIO, so Delete/Merge arguments were cut off at the knees when editors like me were confused about that. The switch in that shortcut may be a reason to relist the debate, as I posted at the top of the AfD.Noroton (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC) (corrected link Noroton (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- I don't think merging Vicki Iseman and John McCain lobbyist controversy is an unreasonable idea by any means. But DRV isn't the place for that; merging options can (and should, for the sake of clarity) be discussed on the talk page after an AfD is closed as keep.
- Again, I think WP:ONEEVENT allusions are very tenuous given the obvious long-term significance of this particular event. Whether or not the information could theoretically be placed anywhere doesn't change that. WP:ONEEVENT really was not meant to preclude proper coverage of events of this magnitude (hence its qualifications); the relevant talk page discussions and ArbCom proceedings make this clear. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. You cannot just wave the policies and essays of "BLP", "COATRACK" and "BLP1E" and use them to say "this must therefore be deleted, end of discussion" without considering if there really is a violation of those policies. In fact, BLP1E and COATRACK arguments were in my view very unconvincing since the article focuses on Iseman's achievements as a lobbyist, and not on the nonsense speculation from the New York Times. If the article was a repeat of the NYT story, that would be a coatrack and BLP1E, but this article is in fact a complete biography. Read the article. The McCain story is just mentioned briefly with a link in the lead. The rest of the article is about Iseman's education, and her career. The NYT silliness is probably what gave Iseman name recognition for most people who know her name now, but it is her activities in working with politicians which has given her real significance. The WP:BLP policy is mainly a policy on how to write biographies on living people, not whether to write such biographies, and with every statement in the article well sourced, there is no violation. The closure was entirely correct. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - Cover the event, not the person. - we cover the event, we don't need to cover the person. Will (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and compromise at merge redirect to John McCain lobbyist controversy. The notability of this individual is already decreasing to "yesterday's news" and we have the only thing she is notable for covered as the "event" per WP:BLP1E. Closing admin got it wrong, this is a BLP issue, a consensus to keep is needed, whereas there is a consensus here to do something other than keeping a biography. I nominated for, and still prefer, deletion, but a merge would be a fair compromise.--Docg 12:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, I like that tool! Look at this: stats for "John McCain lobbyist controversy". Comparing the numbers for the person with the numbers for the controversy, it's possible to state with confidence: this is an ex-parrot. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also interesting: the stats for the article on McCain. Avb 13:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Recuse as major contributor. I have pledged to abide by the AfD. Now, I'm surprised that within minutes of unsuccessful AfD, the page was redirected, as if no one had objected to this exact action prior to to the AfD. I have reverted the redirect as against the consensus measured (in the AfD and VI talk). I encourage this correct process, but am disappointed with the unsupported redirect by Doc. Since Doc appears so interested in getting his way here, I'm just going to stop fighting him, even though in this case I believe he's incorrect, and consensus already has been measured as against his action. BusterD (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect is not the same as a deletion, it is an editorial decision that stands apart from the deletion process. --Docg 12:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything you say, Doc. BusterD (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you stop attacking people who disagree with you, please? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [EC] Comment for clarity. Your view is of course important Doc but as an admin you are probably aware that at point 7 here it does not state that a consensus to keep is needed - it in fact states that If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the article is kept by default, but the decision should generally include a reference to the lack of consensus, such as No consensus - default to keep, in order to minimise ambiguity and future confusion. As the closing admin that is exactly what view and decision I took. Whatever happens here so be it but there was no consensus to delete even as BLP and even less of an interest or consensus to merge. Best wishes--VS talk 12:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- Fair enough your edit summary of no consensus to delete perhaps, but certainly a consensus to merge/redirect) made it look like you were acting in direct opposition to the closure of the AfD - good faith is your right and assumed - but now you know. Best wishes.--VS talk 12:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- As you like - but it was also not a consensus to re-direct. I leave you to it - but I ask you to again await the decision of this secondary process, and as my understanding of you is that you are a good editor and admin I continue to assume good faith that you will do just that. Again my best wishes to you. --VS talk 13:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The has decided to redirect anyway. BusterD (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Protected - Yes I noted that he has - and such an action was completely inappropriate. I have reverted and protected for now and I urge all persons including Tony aka Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The to await the outcome of DRV especially when that editor has asked for the review. If the DRV results in a change of view on my AfD closure that will be accepted by me without qualm. --VS talk 14:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse close I would likely have endorsed the close if this had been closed as a merger and that should still be strongly considered and possibly discussed on the talk page. But a no consensus is a reasonable close as well. The redirection in the middle of this DRV is not so good but I believe Doc when he says that he was unaware of this discussion. Claims that ONEVENT/BLP1E and others somehow necessitate overturning are highly unpersuasive. In general, we should respect actual consensus or lack thereof when deciding BLP-penumbra issues. See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP for more about this issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and redirect None of the "keep" arguments provided a rationale that overrides policy. WP:ONEEVENT is policy. As I noted in the AfD, outside of two trivial events (a listing of her clients from her now-deleted profile page at her firm, and a note about her speaking at a school board meeting), none of the sources covered her outside of the context of her relationship with McCain. All of the relevant information is at John McCain lobbyist controversy, which is an appropriate article. In fact, her name should not appear anywhere in Wikipedia, because this whole kerfuffle isn't about her, it's about McCain. That is why the coatrack analogy has been applied; it's "all about George" (or in this case, "all about John"). WP:COAT is not an appropriate deletion rationale, but the application of policy is incontrovertibly correct. Cover the event, not the person. Horologium (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn BLP is policy and AFD consensus should be measured against policy not headcount. The closing comments do not address the BLP aspect so it is not clear that this was properly weighed in the close. I would personally go for a straight redirect to the controversy article. Spartaz Humbug! 15:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse some political events are important, and this is one of them. Itwill remain in the histories of the campaign when its written. I wish people would realize that the presumption of privacy does not apply to really major politicians such as presidential candidates, and those involved with them to the extent that they are already covered by the news media extensively. In such circumstances, if an article is reliably sourced it meets BLPDGG (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Nobody is disagreeing that the event is important. Vicki Iseman, however, is not important. The event is mentioned and linked from five other articles in Wikipedia, including John McCain lobbyist controversy, which is the article specifically addressing the event. Horologium (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That article you mention was just destructively redirected, despite clear consensus at the afd to keep it. (Its now up for deletion review, on the grounds that this redirect amounts to a deletion). this shows a certain determination to get rid of the content regardless. The consensus of the community has been repeatedly expressed on this one, and it shoud stand. DGG (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I have contributed to that discussion. My position is that having two articles is clearly unnecessary, and support keeping that article and deleting this one. The BLP issues in that article can be fixed, but not in this one, and the community's "consensus" cannot override policy. Horologium (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unless We can do anything we damn well please (WCDAWDWP) is the governing philosophy (and I'm not confident that it isn't), then this DRV discussion needs to focus on whether or not the closing admin misinterpreted the debate. The only misinterpretation that would get us anywhere close to rehashing the AfD itself is over the question of how much certain votes should be discounted because they ignored or argued against policy rather than giving an acceptable interpretation of it. If editors would prefer to overrule WP:BLP this isn't the proper forum for that, and WP:Ignore All Rules could be argued, but there would need to be an extremely strong case that it would be best for the encyclopedia to ignore WP:BLP. See WP:DRV: This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer -- nor for that matter should it be used to rehash the debate if you agree with the outcome. Am I wrong about any of this? Noroton (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I notice that it took a while for a closing admin to weigh into the 84K-long, difficult AfD and I appreciate and applaud the admin who took on the responsibility. I also appreciate the regard for consensus and the editor's statement that policy was considered. It could not have been easy, and the closing admin has earned my respect for that. With one point I would quarrel: In this kind of detailed, long, contentious AfD it would have been better to close with a more detailed statement about how the decision actually related to policy. I disagree with the closing decision because consensus (or in this case a lack of consensus) cannot overturn policy, and no policy-based argument was put forth for Keep, while very detailed policy-based arguments were given for delete or merge. The Keep side really hasn't done it's job in providing those arguments while the common-sense application of WP:ONEEVENT, a policy has been shown to be obvious. That being the case, Keep votes must be discounted and a "rough consensus" declared, probably for "delete" (too few "merge" votes, which was my choice). The only guidelines I can find for closing admins is at WP:DGFA where the "Rough Consensus" section states very clearly:
- Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. [...]
- A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions.
- I put some hard work into providing policy-based arguments against Keep. I did so because as an editor participating in that discussion, I was obligated to try to apply policy and guidelines as well as my common sense more than my personal preferences. I do not see evidence on that AfD page that adequate policy-based arguments were presented by the other side. I don't see evidence in the closing statement that the closing admin adequately considered how little the Keep editors relied on policy even though good policy arguments were presented on the Delete/Merge side. It does not appear that WP:DGFA was followed, therefore the closing was outside deletion policy and should be overturned. Noroton (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, redirect and/or delete, without casting aspersions on the good faith of anyone involved. WP:BLP is an important principle, and here we have a person whose role in public life is so minor that without the one regrettable event any article would be a slam-dunk delete; we should cover such matters not as pretended biographies (which are essentially coatracks, as noted) but as events. This event involves more than one person, is inextricably linked to a political campaign with attendant muckraking, and most of the interest in the individual is purely salacious. We should not be bolstering this. An existing article exists on the campaign and its controversies, and that is where this material should go. A redirect is unproblematic, a biography is not because there is no reason for this person to have any ongoing coverage. In twenty years time the article will still be "X is some girl that was involved with a politician and that ended up in the news". Guy (Help!) 17:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's even more tenuous than that, actually. "X was a girl that a politician's aides, anonymously, told a newspaper they thought might have been too close to politician Y". There is no evidence, in all this mess, that Vicki Iseman was ever involved with anybody, appropriately or inappropriately. Nor has the New York Times claimed that she was (and they were severely lambasted by their Public Editor for running the story, given the lack of evidence) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure -- the task of an administrator in closing an AFD discussion is to effectuate the consensus expressed, not to employ the closure as a forum for his or her own personal views regarding the acceptability of an article's subject matter. The closure of this discussion as "no consensus" is exemplary in its adherence to this principle. Absent an extrodinarily compelling reason, such as an article which is comprised of unsourced controversial material concerning living persons or copyright infrigements, administrators must not delete articles being discussed at AFD without an actual consensus to do so. While an article which substantially violates the biographies of living persons policy should be deleted, the determination of whether any particular article actually constitutes a WP:BLP violation is to be made by means of consensus, except in the case of articles which are comprised of inadequately sourced, potentially libelous material. Since this article is clearly not such a blatant WP:BLP violation as to warrant deletion against consensus, the AFD discussion was properly closed. John254 17:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus disagrees with you on the task of the closing admin, as I demonstrated in my post at 17:33. Strength of argument counts, not simply that there was an argument, however weak.Noroton (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course AFD discussions should be closed on the basis of the strength of arguments. However, the relative merits of the arguments presented is a subjectivity that is better assessed collectively by the established contributors participating in an AFD discussion than by the single administrator closing it. (Note that some of the editors supporting retention of the article are administrators themselves.) Furthermore, as I argue below, deletion of the article is radically inconsistent with the purpose of the biographies of living persons policy, as the deletion would compromise our neutrality and fair treatment of Vicki Iseman by ensuring that we provide no positive coverage whatsoever, and instead mention only the controversy surrounding her. John254 18:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- the relative merits of the arguments presented is a subjectivity that is better assessed collectively by the established contributors participating in an AFD discussion than by the single administrator closing it. Yet again (as below) you're twisting a policy or guideline into something exactly the opposite of what it means. The passage in WP:DGFA that I quoted directly contradicts you. It is the closing admin's job to assess how well policy has been adhered to by editors in the discussion. You've been arguing that the Keep arguments adhered strongly enough to policy not to be radically discounted, but your own arguments are weak even right here. Noroton (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the text of Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus does state that the single administrator closing an AFD discussion should personally consider and weigh the merits of the arguments presented. What must not be overlooked is that this policy provision is intended to be applied to a particular situation, namely, one in which either outright sockpuppetry or the participation of a large number of inexperienced or otherwise unrepresentative users results in a large number of comments in an AFD discussion which are contrary to community-wide policy and consensus. It is singularly inappropriate for an administrator closing an AFD discussion to misapply Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus by claiming that his or her judgment regarding the correct application of policy to the article in question is so far superior to even the judgement of other administrators in this respect that his or her personal assessment of the merits of the arguments presented outweighs the judgement of all other established users, including other administrators, partipating in the discussion. John254 20:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "For example", "including" in 1st paragraph. 'Nuff said. Noroton (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, the claim that Vicki Iseman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is somehow a "coatrack" for the John McCain lobbyist controversy is without merit, as the article focuses almost entirely on Vicki Iseman's career, mentioning the controversy only briefly. An important aspect of the enforcement of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is to uphold the intent of the policy, not to enforce the letter of the policy in a manner contrary to its purpose -- see WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. Arguments for the deletion of this article focused on a largely mechanical application of WP:BLP1E to the subject matter, without considering whether the general mandate of the policy to strictly adhere to a neutral point of view and "do no harm" is thereby effectuated. Is it seriously contended that limiting coverage of Vicki Iseman to the John McCain lobbyist controversy article, thereby covering only the controversial aspects of her life, and nothing about the positive aspects of her career, somehow furthers the application of WP:NPOV and "do no harm"? John254 18:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This falls under the 2-4 definitions at Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Interpreting WP:BLP or WP:BIO (your link to WP:BLP1E at this point confuses me for the reasons explained in my 19:06 comment below) to demand that we provide "positive coverage" of a person notable for only one event contravenes both the spirit of WP:BLP and the direct language of the WP:ONEEVENT section. This is the kind of illogical, weak argument that is found on the AfD page, which is the only reason we can bring it up here because this is not AfD Part 2. We are obligated to be "fair" in our coverage of an event. We are not obligated to say nice things about someone in their own WP article because something bad about them was said (insinuated, actually) in an article on an event. Having something not nice written about you in Wikipedia is not a notability criterion for an article. From WP:DGFA: Arguments that contradict policy, ... or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. Noroton (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a straw man argument. I never claimed that "anytime we mention a person in the context of negative events, we must provide an article on the positive aspects of that persons life." Indeed, if the only reliably sourced information concerning a person relates to their participation in negative events, we cannot, consistent with Wikipedia:Verifiability, have an article about other aspects of their life. Our coverage of Vicki Iseman presents a particular set of issues: our present article demonstrates that it is possible to provide substantial reliably sourced information concerning her accomplishments, and place the events described in John McCain lobbyist controversy in context. To exclude any well-sourced favorable coverage of Vicki Iseman from our encyclopedia, and describe only her involvement in the John McCain lobbyist controversy, is the precisely the sort of negatively biased coverage that is incompatible with both our neutral point of view and biographies of living persons policies. This is only "wikilawyering" to the extent that the biographies of living persons policy is viewed as a deletionists' charter, instead of a policy designed to ensure that our coverage of living people is accurate, fair, and balanced. John254 19:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to mention her by name at all, either in the controversy article, or in this "biographical" article. The article covering the issue does not suffer by omitting her name (simply identifying her as a lobbyist is sufficient). The sources for the New York Times article were described as a pair of "disillusioned" and former McCain employees, and their allegations have been denied by McCain and Iseman. More importantly, they have been denied by McCain's former communications director, Dan Schnur, who is not involved with McCain at all at this point. He stated that the allegations were "highly implausible", and added there he was totally unaware of any discussions about the alleged relationship while he was working for McCain. [3] The public editor of the Times very frankly criticized the paper's handling of the entire story, and stated that they provided no evidence of a relationship between the two.[4]
- Precedent on Wikipedia has been to remove articles on people whose notoriety stems primarily from a single incident; Alison Stokke, "QZ", and Crystal Gail Mangum as primary examples. The first is the most relevant; there was nothing derogatory in her bio, and she had apparently held track records of some sort, but her notoriety stemmed almost solely from her emergence as an internet phenomenon from a YouTube video, and the rumors and salacious speculation surrounding a totally innocent act. In the case of Iseman, without the gossip (and that is all it is), she is as utterly non-notable as the thousands of other lobbyists in Washington, and we shouldn't be in the business of republishing rumors and gossip. Horologium (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but the situations aren't comparative at all. Alison Stokke was a teenager who had nasty things said about her on the internet. That's not at all in the same category as a major lobbyist who has been mentioned and discussed in major newspapers. Furthermore, given how much attention this matter has received the idea that a Wikipedia article will substantially alter the level of public attention is close to laughable. In any event, this is not AfD round 2. We should let community consensus decide what to do in such cases, in this case there was not sufficient consensus to delete. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I observe that
- (1) Vicki Iseman's name is currently present in John McCain lobbyist controversy.
- (2) It is likely that any effort to redact the name would not achieve consensus.
- (3) There is actually little precedent for completely censoring any mention of people who are mentioned in nationwide journalistic coverage of notable events.
- Any argument predicated upon such an inappropriate action as completely redacting Vicki Iseman's name from John McCain lobbyist controversy should be withheld unless such a redaction has actually been effectuated and maintained against what will doubtless be many outraged users. Articles such as those described above are actually quite different cases: Crystal Gail Mangum, for example, was deleted as a genuine coatrack, because it provided exceedingly negative coverage of Crystal Gail Mangum's participation in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case and little else. Our article concerning Vicki Iseman obviously does not suffer from this deficiency, as it is primarily concerned with well-sourced, positive aspects of her career. Special:Undelete/Alison Stokke was deleted on the grounds of genuinely harmful publicity, as the article related to a person with no voluntary participation in public life who had a notability which she regarded as embarrassing thrust upon her through no fault of her own. Vicki Iseman may be distinguished on two grounds: that lobbyists are intentionally public figures, and that her notability arose as a result of alleged fault asserted by highly reliable sources such as The New York Times. John254 21:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convenience break
- WP:BLP1E as a shortcut' I only found out after a closer review of this AfD that WP:BLP1E (oops. Corrected at the time noted at bottom. I miswrote it when I called it WP:BLP#1E, which DOES direct to WP:BLP, and how's THAT for confusion?), despite the fact that it has "BLP" in it, no longer directs to the WP:BLP policy but now directs to the WP:BIO guideline. As can be seen in the AfD, and now on Doc Glasgow's talk page, some experienced editors who were used to that shortcut as a link to the section in WP:BLP were inadvertently directing people to the WP:BIO page. (The new link to the WP:BLP section is WP:ONEEVENT.) The shortcut was apparently changed months ago in an ... ill-advised move to delete the "one event" section of WP:BLP and when the section was restored the shortcut remained at WP:BIO. One of the most strenuous Keep editors, User:Therefore, was following the BLP#1E link that editors were referring to and was evidently confused for a while (he did not change his vote when the confusion was finally cleared up). Some of the Keep editors who participated in the earlier stages of the debate may well have had their decisions affected by the confusion. Although I think this DRV discussion should result in overturning, it would be completely justifiable to relist. I've offered (at the top of the AfD page) to contact every editor who participated in the AfD to make them aware of the difference and offer them an opportunity to reconsider, since they may have been confused. My offer stands, but only if the AfD is relisted. (It seems to me that, absent a complete merger of policies or guidelines, editors should not be allowed to redirect a shortcut to a policy/guideline page for just this reason.) I realize that the shortcut was changed months ago, but does anyone really want to argue that editors need to check each time they type a shortcut into an AfD discussion? They're called "shortcuts" for a reason. Noroton (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC) (corrected link as noted above Noroton (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Arguing that an article should be deleted because the redirect target of a shortcut has been changed is the sort of wikilawyering that is strongly disfavored by WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. This article is not comprised of the sort of material of that WP:BLP1E is designed to prohibit. If we had an article on the John McCain lobbyist controversy masquerading as a biography of Vicki Iseman, this would constitute a genuine WP:BLP1E violation. However, our present article on Vicki Iseman instead serves the vital purpose of placing the events described in John McCain lobbyist controversy in the larger context of Vicki Iseman, thereby ensuring that our coverage of her remains fair and balanced, as required by WP:BLP. I therefore contend that the biographies of living persons policy actually requires the retention of this article, if we are to cover the John McCain lobbyist controversy at all. John254 18:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of the items on the numbered list of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering applies to my comment, John? And when you mention WP:BLP1E are you referring to the WP:BLP policy or the WP:BIO guideline that your shortcut points to? I'm confused. Noroton (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By WP:BLP1E I refer to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event, Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event, and anywhere else the same policy provision has been restated. John254 19:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by closing admin - having awoken to such interesting re-debate on the article I feel it is proper to clarify again (as was already posted [5] here in response to the initial question by Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The) that my close was not (as put above) measured against headcount. Indeed I spent over 2 hours reading through the responses and links in the AfD; I read the article and articles related to the AfD; I noted each nominators previous edits especially where they were Single Purpose Accounts; and I did not pay undue attention to the numbers but added them as a part of my closure just to give comparison values. As I stated in my close I looked very carefully at the various points of view expressed. Whilst I read good arguments - I read them from both sides and that fact and the fact that a consensus to close was not formed forced my action as the closing administrator to reach the default conclusion of keep - in my view as a part of the overall policy and guidelines to closing admins. Best wishes--VS talk 00:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SV's comment repeats the mistake on the top of the AfD page: The convincing points in the case the admin agreed with should be noted. Instead we have an assertion that they were looked at. In a hotly debated case, if one argument is more convincing than a competing argument, it is useful to everybody if the closing admin can point it out. In some cases, it will avoid DRV (although that was unlikely in this case) and it will help educate editors.Noroton (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure Not a single individual has raised any argument that the close violates Wikipedia process, the only valid justification for overturning consensus. All I see here is an attempt to reargue the failed attempt at deletion. Alansohn (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. It is contested that the close failed to reflect policy as expressed in WP:BLP, which no amount of WP:ILIKEIT keeps can overcome. It is a well established principle that policy overrides vote counting, not least because consensus behind policy is immeasurably greater than the "consensus" represented by a few dozen editors turning up at an AfD. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is in dispute here, however, is the correct application of the biographies of living persons policy to the facts in question. Users supporting deletion have engaged in extensive wikilawyering to argue the downright bizarre conclusion that the biographies of living persons policy requires us to cover only the controversy in which Vicki Iseman was involved, and exclude all mention of well-sourced information concerning her accomplishments, thereby creating the very sort of negatively biased coverage that the policy is designed to prohibit. As a still more disruptive tactic, supporters of the deletion of Vicki Iseman have resorted to blanking and redirecting John McCain lobbyist controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in an apparent attempt to undermine the arguments that I have presented here [6] [7] [8], despite a clear consensus to retain the article in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, and a judgement by the administrator closing the AFD discussion that the article did not constitute a WP:BLP violation. Rather than edit warring any further with the users engaging in page-blanking, I will list John McCain lobbyist controversy at deletion review as well. John254 13:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, even if John McCain lobbyist controversy remains blanked and redirected, John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists also mentions Vicki Iseman. Unless we're going to redact her name from the presidential campaign article as well, the deletion of this article would still place massively undue weight on the scandal, and exclude all well-sourced information favorable to Vicki Iseman. (This should not be construed as an invitation to actually redact Vicki Iseman's name from the presidential campaign article, as censoring the article would be massively against consensus.) John254 15:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who you gonna believe, people: John254 or our own lyin' eyes? But I guess I'm being too mechanical in my strained, wikilawyered interpretation of this deeply complex and nuanced policy which in fact means the opposite of what it says it means. Getting back to the actual purpose of this forum: The policy exists. No other interpretation is available when policy is explicit and obvious. If an AfD consensus refuses to recognize that, it is the job of the closing admin to do so. If the closing admin does not do so it is the job of this forum to point it out and the job of the closing admin of this forum to do so. Noroton (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and people can have reasonable disagreements about how to interpret and enforce policy. In this case, there did not seem to be a consesus that Marsden was either a) only notable for one event and b) that that one event was not by itself so notable as to not override such concerns. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I go into this here only to make the point that no plausable response to these arguments was in the AfD discussion: (a) There was no other event than the Feb. 21 NY Times article that was notable. The article consisted of either mentions in the media that are trivial or nonsubstantial by the definition of WP:N or WP:ORG (50th paragraph on the history-making Homer-Center School Board meeting; three paragraphs in the college alumni magazine, etc.) or it consisted of stories that piggybacked on the original New York Times story which was one event if ever there was one (by "piggybacked" I mean those other stories never, ever would have been written without the original NYT story -- therefore they offer no additional proof of notability beyond one event). Where is the argument in the AfD that gives a plausable response to this point, which I did make in the AfD? In fact, in the AfD I ran through a description of all seven footnotes in the article. It simply is not plausable to claim more than one notable event in this person's life. (b) I agree that the event was notable. That's why it's covered in its own article, and the event is certainly important enough to be covered by a Wikipedia article. And WP:ONEEVENT has very specific, very clear, very hard-to-misinterpret language saying why an additional BLP article is a bad idea when the event has its own article. Noroton (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, to more directly refute JoshuaZ's point (b): I would agree that if this event was comparable to the JFK assassination, then this article would be justified as the BLP of a subject just too important to be ignored. It's kind of hard to argue that this event was of such importance since the reporting has largely ceased and it doesn't seem to have hurt McCain. Noroton (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll respond to the rest of your points later today when I have more time but to be brief; if we agree that there is some point where an individual's notability overrides ONEEVENT/BLP1E issues then that needs to be determined by community consensus; in this case the consensus was that that wasn't the case. DRV is not AfD roudn 2. (I don't see any consensus against merging but that isn't the claim being made here and regardless should have a full discussion. Certainly merging isn't viable as long as the obvious merge target itself is just a redirect. See the DRV a few entries above this one). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Devil's Advocate makes a similar point below, and I answer it there at 18:16, 3 March. Essentially, exceptions to WP:ONEEVENT would also have to be exceptions to WP:NOT#NEWS which covers much of the same territory and is also a policy. But if we're going to continue on this point, let's do it at that spot on the page. Noroton (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's correct -- it's obvious that the deletion of this article would constitute a serious WP:BLP violation, as it would thereby place undue weight on the scandal described in John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008#Alleged_inappropriate_involvement_with_lobbyists, to the detriment of our coverage of well-sourced, favorable information concerning Vicki Iseman, which should likewise be included to maintain our neutrality. Ensuring that our coverage of living people is accurate, fair, and balanced should be what WP:BLP enforcement is all about, not trying to find reasons to delete as many articles as possible. John254 19:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I'm a bit disturbed by the discussion above this one DRVing John McCain lobbyist controversy. The combination of attempting to delete/redirect that article together with the attempt to remove the Iseman article together essentially appears to have the net effect of removing most substantial coverage of a very notable set of events that is having long-term impacts on the United States presidential campaign. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree. I've added my voice over at Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 and others should too. It doesn't much affect the arguments here, however, since the event is covered either way. It would be unfair and inappropriate under the spirit of WP:BLP if more information about the event were included in an article about one participant rather than an article about McCain, the most important participant and the one who actually makes the event notable. It has the flavor of pinning the scarlet letter on one person and not the other, whatever the intentions of Wikipedia editors. Noroton (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure Arguments given for deletion seemed to focus on WP:ONEEVENT, which is a common objection to biographies of such people and not always sufficient. However, I think the general reason against including a person in that case is if the event does not center around that person, the event itself isn't very significant, or that person isn't a significant player in the event. It's not intended to mean a person has to be notable for more than one event. Given the nature of the actual event and her specific role in it the one event argument just wasn't sufficient reason.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not intended to mean a person has to be notable for more than one event. Except that there's absolutely nothing in WP:ONEEVENT to support that interpretation. Noroton (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article somehow passes deletion review, how could it possibly have any information in it since the subject is of marginal notability and therefore all information not connected to this one event would have to be deleted under "People who are relatively unknown", the subsection immediately above WP:ONEEVENT. WP:NPF states editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability (boldface in original). So we delete everything but the information on this one event under WP:NPF and then all we have is information on this one event, which is strongly discouraged by WP:ONEEVENT (If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.) If this person were notable, we wouldn't be in this kind of a ridiculous dilemma. Noroton (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fortunately, per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, we are not bound to follow a strictly literal interpretation of policy, to the manifest detriment of the policy's intent and purpose:
Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
WP:BLP1E is intended to be applied to a situation in which we have an article concerning an event under the pretense of a biography of a person involved in it. Such an article necessarily gives massive undue weight to the event in our characterization of the person involved in it, and, thus, constitutes an actual, substantive, WP:BLP violation. See Special:Undelete/Crystal Gail Mangum as an archetypical example of such an unacceptable article. Yet, for most people whose notability has arisen from a single event, we cannot, consistent with Wikipedia:Verifiability, produce comprehensive biographies, since we lack the necessary coverage in third-party reliable sources. In the case of Vicki Iseman, however, avoidance of undue weight actually weighs in favor of retention of the article, since deletion of the article removes well-sourced information favorable to Vicki Iseman, and leaves us with only a mention of her involvement in a scandal. The general purpose of the biographies of living persons policy trumps its specific terms: it is manifestly incorrect to claim that the policy actually requires us to violate our neutral point of view policy by means of negatively-biased selection of which well-sourced material to report, when the policy expressly states its purpose as follows:Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States and to our content policies:
* Neutral point of view (NPOV)
* Verifiability
* No original research
I strongly disagree with highly technical interpretations of the policy which require us to not do anything mandated by its purpose. John254 02:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy language actually touches on WP:NPOV concerns and refutes John's point more economically than I ever could. In applying policy, a look at the intent, purpose and spirit is a good guide. The nut graph and paragraphs at the top of the policy help as do descriptions of the policy that are found in other policies. See WP:NOT#NEWS. Noroton (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Noroton you completely misread the policy. Few articles deal solely with a person in context of what that person is notable for because that would just be a dumb article. Background of some sort is always required in an article. Her career as a lobbyist goes directly to her notability because if she wasn't a lobbyist, well, she probably would never have been in the news.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DA's disagreement is primarily with with policy, not with me. Noroton (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy doesn't make it clear for someone who apparently only looks for black and white statements, but WP:ONEVENT is not given as an absolute argument. I'll highlight it for you: The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.
- If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.
- One should consider WP:BLP1E as it concerns talk of one event notability. Policy is not clear enough on this issue, but a person associated with one event may be given an independent article in certain conditions. As such if someone's argument on an article is only WP:ONEEVENT but this event happens to be extremely notable and this person was a central figure in it, there has to be consideration for whether this is an exception. So the decision to close as no consensus was perfectly legitimate given the circumstances of the case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a good point (JoahuaZ brings it up earlier), and it gets us back to what we're actually supposed to be doing here: deciding if the closing admin's decision was within policy. The argument DA makes was made in the AfD, but here and in the AfD the WP:NOT#NEWS policy was ignored (emphases added): Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. [...] Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
- Note the "may" in the quote is not absolute either, which further strengthens DA's case. Clearly, this policy and WP:BLP allow for exceptions and clearly consensus can decide those exceptions, but common sense tells us that even a consensus to apply policy has limits or we'd have the equivalent of jury nullification all over the place -- groups of editors being willfully blind to policy and doing whatever they pleased.
- The WP:NOT#NEWS policy above clearly states that the encyclopedia is concerned not with the passing notability of news accounts but the longer-term notability of history. In the AfD, User:DGG was one of the editors making the point that WP:BLP is not absolute. (I also addressed this in the AfD and said that we needed a justification for making this exception and I didn't see any good ones.) DGG and others were not making the point that this was an exception due to historical notability but that the woman was in the news. Comments at the AfD also justified "Keep" votes because the article would be useful to readers now interested in the news event. These comments should have been radically discounted because they were so contrary to WP:NOT#NEWS as well as WP:BLP (as well as WP:USEFUL).
- The closing admin should have radically discounted those Keep !votes because historical notability can't reasonably be claimed if we're talking about interest that only lasts for months. The AfD participants had no reasonable way of knowing that an article providing more information about her than is in John McCain lobbyist controversy would be of any historical interest at all for encyclopedia readers. Incidentally, the "historical notability" isn't a high hurdle: I think two notable events would get past it, but it is meant to help weed out subjects of only passing notability. The exceptions allowed for in WP:BLP aren't a license to violate it any time we damn well please but in cases like Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan where delving into the person's personal life may provide important answers to historical questions, and the focus on that notable material is further mandated by the "People who are relatively unknown" subsection of WP:BLP. We see this article running up against multiple policies which reinforce and clarify each other, something we don't see applying to one-event-notability articles like the ones on Oswald and Sirhan. Noroton (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (Minor change: replaced "John Hinckley" with "Sirhan Sirhan" -- Hinckley was notable for more than one event. Noroton (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- I'm not going to try and make this AfD part two, but the fact is this really shows why the close as no consensus was appropriate. Whether policy justified deletion in this case seemed more a matter of personal interpretation than any clear-set policy. Arguably her career as a lobbyist does give her historic notability. The fact reliable sources are given for her history before the controversy just proves this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
