Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke (2nd nomination)

message: *The number of arguments on both sides is now so significant that this AfD cannot be closed as anything other than "No consensus". If it is closed as Delete, or indeed as Keep, that will be nothing less than abuse of admin tools. Closing admins do not have the right to ignore arguments given in good faith, even if they don't agree with them. If that happens, I will take it (yet again) to DRV. Waltonalternate account 09:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Nonsense. If that were true then no controversial deletion or keep decision could ever be made, and these decisions must be made at some point. Whichever admin does close this had better write a damned good explanation though, for their own sake. --tjstrf talk 09:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *As indeed is the case. The Deletion guidelines for administrators clearly say: "When in doubt, don't delete". Of course, a "No consensus" decision is in reality tantamount to a "Keep" decision. In this case, as Walton points out, it would be ridiculous to claim that a consensus has been reached. Unless opinion should shift significantly, which is unlikely, the only way this article could be deleted at this point would be through an Office Action by Jimmy Wales or other Wikipedia staff. I believe these are only performed at the request of the subject, however. Lampman 12:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Admins often close 'no consensus' results not as 'keep' but according to what they consider to be the weight of the arguments presented. In this case elite opinion seems to be on the side of 'delete' so I'd say the closing admin is most likely to delete the article. At that point any further DRV-attempts will likely be speedily closed. Haukur 13:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *"Elite opinion?" I don't remember any policies about "elite opinions" being worth more than those of the, uh, WikiProletariat. --Ashenai 13:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the comment was an observation that the majority of the long-standing admins who have voiced opinions have favored deletion. If that is a somewhat representative sample of the active admin core then it makes it more likely the closer will close for deletion. JoshuaZ 13:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is exactly what I meant. You put it very clearly. Haukur 13:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, "elite opinion"!? Apart from the unparalleled arrogance, that is simply not true; there are weighty arguments by admins and solid contributors on both sides of the debate. Any closing admin trying to delete the article had better come up with something better than that! Lampman 13:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're misunderstanding, read JoshuaZ's comment again. Haukur 14:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Holy crap! Elite opinion? Just wow.  Grue  13:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, that’s just the kind of arrogance that started the trouble here, when an admin decided to speedy the article without consulting the community. Never mind that Alkivar, Night Gyr, Prolog, DGG, Walton and AnonEMouse – all admins – have come down on “Keep”, that’s besides the point; admins are not gods, they’re just housekeepers, and everyone has an equal right to be heard. Please, no more ‘my friends say “Delete”’-arguments. Lampman 14:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add me, even though it's beside the point... Tyrenius 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I was just trying to describe how things work around here. You were saying there was no way now the article could be deleted without OFFICE. I'm saying the closing admin can (and IMO probably will) decide the argument favors deletion and go with that. Even if s/he doesn't we could still have another round of speedy-deletions and restorations (a wheel war). This just isn't a very orderly place. Haukur 14:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t think I am misunderstanding. As I’ve said, I believe you’re wrong about admins being predominantly in favour of "Delete", but that doesn’t really matter, cause since when did we start counting admins on AfD, and ignore everyone else? That would be changing the rules in the middle of the game to get the result you want, and I don’t think a responsible admin would do that. As for anyone speedying an article that’s survived an AfD, that would just be pure vandalism, and that person should be desysoped. Lampman 14:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I wasn't saying the closing admin would count only admin opinion. AfD-survivors get speedied all the time. Haukur 14:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I’m saying they shouldn’t be counted at all. I can’t predict what an admin will do, I’m only saying what a responsible admin should not do. I’ve re-read the Deletion guidelines for administrators, and I find no basis for such a practice. The only weighing of opinions based on the contributor that’s allowed is ignoring sock puppets and users without edits. It says nothing about admins being more important than others, as indeed they shouldn’t be. Of course the weight of arguments must be considered, but when strong and valid arguments have been made on both sides, a closing admin can’t come down on one side or the other. The closing admin is not supposed to take sides in a debate, but impartially interpret the community’s consensus – or lack thereof. Lampman 14:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not saying the closing admin would count admin opinion more heavily (though she might). Even if you think there are strong and valid arguments on both sides the closing admin may not agree with you or may think that those on one side are considerably stronger and more valid. Browse through the AfD archives and you'll see a lot of examples of admins deleting articles where there is no consensus in the discussion. Haukur 15:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "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...Cover the event, not the person."  
Merging this article and similar articles to a new article covering "unwanted internet attention" can have many advantages.  First, it is explicitly recommend by WP:BLP.  Also, as the article is not covering individuals there is no need to say any private information beyond the little that is needed to understand their "fame".  The new article can give context and background to internet privacy concerns common to these individuals.  Also, as all the references to these people will be in one place it is easier to make sure the content says under control and objective.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon513 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 7 June 2007
**Except she is notable as an athlete.  I'm extremely opposed to a merge. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this would be a productive solution acceptable to most rational people, and I would support it. Biographical articles are rarely the best way to present this kind of information. --bainer (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that you curb language suggesting that those who may oppose this proposal are irrational, for starters. Secondly, it doesn't seem like a very good idea, given the subject's notability as both a athlete and for the internet thing. Tarc 12:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite what you may think, she's not notable as an athlete... yet. --Ali'i 13:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say her national records disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Y'know I'm sure you've said that already. Others disagree.--Docg 13:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice.  I've said it again, though, so it's clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so it is more clear, which national records does she actually hold? Mahalo, Jeff. --Ali'i 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to say how many national records she currently holds, but she has at least broken five of them, and was ranked tenth in the world in the 1988-1990-born age class (third in 1989 and younger) in 2005. Prolog 14:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If she was ranked 10th in the world, who were ranked 1-9?  Why don't we have articles about them?  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because noone posted pictures of them all over the Internet, and so noone is making efforts to "prove" them notable. --bainer (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It says behind the link who were ranked 1-9. I do not know if they have articles, but if these athletes meet WP:BIO and WP:V, like Stokke, then by all means go create articles for them. Prolog 14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Because no one has bothered to make them yet?  Seems like a worthwhile project, actually.  How come no one made an article about the 1935 Academy Award winner for Best Short Subject until this week?  It's not because it wasn't worthy, but because no one had gotten to it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So Wikipedia, a top-ten website, is going to compile and maintain a list of people who have attracted "unwanted internet attention?" Tom Harrison Talk 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any such article should not be a list, it should be prose and based on scholarly sources, if there are any; I would suspect that there are some. --bainer (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * I would support this compromise, but only if it does not involve a separate article on Stokke that includes no mention of the meme.  Such an article will inevitably become the focus of continued attention from fans (i.e., part of the problem), unless the issue and its negative consequences for the subject are addressed head on.--ragesoss 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we not intelligent enough for nuance? Can't we be adroit instead of androids? --Ali'i 16:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Important comment to closing admin

message: I think user:Pushsense JavaTenor had very good idea above which most people here can agree too.   Allision Strokke is not notable as a athlete, but the unwanted internet attention she has endured is notable as it "speaks to the concerns many have over the shifting nature of private citizenship in an era in which anyone with a blog can instantly disseminate information and photographs".  WP:BLP#Articles about living people notable only for one event says 
:"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...Cover the event, not the person."  
Merging this article and similar articles to a new article covering "unwanted internet attention" can have many advantages.  First, it is explicitly recommend by WP:BLP.  Also, as the article is not covering individuals there is no need to say any private information beyond the little that is needed to understand their "fame".  The new article can give context and background to internet privacy concerns common to these individuals.  Also, as all the references to these people will be in one place it is easier to make sure the content says under control and objective.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon513 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 7 June 2007
**Except she is notable as an athlete.  I'm extremely opposed to a merge. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this would be a productive solution acceptable to most rational people, and I would support it. Biographical articles are rarely the best way to present this kind of information. --bainer (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that you curb language suggesting that those who may oppose this proposal are irrational, for starters. Secondly, it doesn't seem like a very good idea, given the subject's notability as both a athlete and for the internet thing. Tarc 12:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite what you may think, she's not notable as an athlete... yet. --Ali'i 13:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say her national records disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Y'know I'm sure you've said that already. Others disagree.--Docg 13:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice.  I've said it again, though, so it's clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so it is more clear, which national records does she actually hold? Mahalo, Jeff. --Ali'i 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to say how many national records she currently holds, but she has at least broken five of them, and was ranked tenth in the world in the 1988-1990-born age class (third in 1989 and younger) in 2005. Prolog 14:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If she was ranked 10th in the world, who were ranked 1-9?  Why don't we have articles about them?  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because noone posted pictures of them all over the Internet, and so noone is making efforts to "prove" them notable. --bainer (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It says behind the link who were ranked 1-9. I do not know if they have articles, but if these athletes meet WP:BIO and WP:V, like Stokke, then by all means go create articles for them. Prolog 14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Because no one has bothered to make them yet?  Seems like a worthwhile project, actually.  How come no one made an article about the 1935 Academy Award winner for Best Short Subject until this week?  It's not because it wasn't worthy, but because no one had gotten to it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So Wikipedia, a top-ten website, is going to compile and maintain a list of people who have attracted "unwanted internet attention?" Tom Harrison Talk 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any such article should not be a list, it should be prose and based on scholarly sources, if there are any; I would suspect that there are some. --bainer (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * I would support this compromise, but only if it does not involve a separate article on Stokke that includes no mention of the meme.  Such an article will inevitably become the focus of continued attention from fans (i.e., part of the problem), unless the issue and its negative consequences for the subject are addressed head on.--ragesoss 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we not intelligent enough for nuance? Can't we be adroit instead of androids? --Ali'i 16:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: compromise?

message: Comment: Wikipedia is not meant to be censored. It was bad enough that the Internet phenomena page got wiped out, making Wikipedia the last place to look for information on Internet culture. I was personally upset at that action, but I accepted it because I agree there is a need for reasonable inclusion criteria. Demanding reliable sources to establish notability and verifiability of memes is completely acceptable to me.
So, what now concerns me is that when those criteria are met, with internet memes making front page news in respected US national newspapers, suddenly those inclusion criteria give way to the arbitrary whims of moral crusaders. Wikipedia reflects the world. We have articles for murder and rape. We have articles for the Star Wars Kid, Gary Brolsma, Rufus Hannah; people who didn't want to be famous but became famous anyway, famous for being filmed in humiliating situations. They're famous because people love to watch other people suffer. These people exist in infamy and it's offensive to me to pretend they don't, to bowdlerize Wikipedia and to keep people from discovering the cruel world we live in. I ask these people: please start a "family friendly" fork of Wikipedia if that's what you want, but don't impose your moral standards on Wikipedia itself. 62.31.67.29 14:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I disagree with most of what you write, I'll add it. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone just locked this page: please add this to the page for me 

message: Just wanted to say that I'd strongly recommend against taking this to deletion review.  I don't think there's much more to be said about it.  This AFD was nicely framed as "discuss this as an article about an athlete" by nominator Xoloz, and I think Cordesat closed it appropriately in that context.  There's been tons of discussion on this, and I don't see how an additional deletion review could shed any additional light on this case.  All it could do is turn into a circus.  Friday (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad, it's there.  This was one of the most poorly weighted closures I've seen in a long time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that the DRV was disruptively closed minutes after listing.  Current discussion when it's not being closed down at AN/I and at the relevant Arbcom case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I told you this would happen (my "elite opinion" comment above). It's still a bit depressing because I think Jeff is actually right that the close wasn't as good as it should have been. It should have gone into detail on how the subject meets or fails specific parts of WP:BIO, or, if arguing from first principles, should have done so in substantial detail. Haukur 15:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hard to fault the close for not going into huge detail, I think.  It's a 100-word close of a deletion debate about a borderline bio of a high school athlete. Editors are still free to add the athletic achievements to appropriate parts of the encyclopedia, with due attention to weight. --Tony Sidaway 16:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the desired detail level of a close is more dependent on the debate than on the article itself. Haukur 16:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think that there's enough information the closing admin could have made any decision, keep, delete, or no consensus. But frankly, his reasoning was wrong. She most certainly passes WP:BIO. If the closing admin had said "consensus determines that though she passes WP:BIO, she isn't notable", I wouldn't have a defense, but WP:BIO (though only a guideline, and can't override consensus, as per the deletion policy) states the article should remain. Am I wrong in any of my estimations here? McKay 16:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't see how anyone could come to a delete conclusion reading the arguments.  But maybe the expectations that the arguments would be read were a bit much. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please consider it at least possible that you could be wrong in your assessment that policy does not support deletion and dozens of other people who think it does, or at least that it plausibly could, could be right. --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prove it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Prove the possibility that you might be wrong?  Come now! --Tony Sidaway 17:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right.  Prove it.  Prove that there's a reason for me to believe, given the current evidence, that I'm incorrect.  I know you can't do it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Jeff, what you're calling "nonsense" above is what I'd call "making an encyclopedia".  This is how we do things.  If we had an article on the relevant records, and she qualified, nobody's saying not to put her in there.  But an appropriate one-sentence mention in another article doesn't get magically expanded into "We can have a biography on her."   Friday (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah.  I'm interested in making an encyclopedia, not shunting off information we're uncomfortable with to make us feel better about ourselves. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've never understood your aversion to merges, and I don't understand it now.  What's wrong with a couple sentences on the relevant record(s), if they exist, in the appropriate article, if it exists?  To me it seems like you're trying to make this about some larger issue, rather than making it about "Does this verifiable information belong in the encyclopedia?  If so, where?"  Friday (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merges don't help the reader, and only end up being frustrating.  If people want information on Allison Stokke, they don't care to read about other internet memes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If anyone is still watching this page..