Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Dutton Douglas (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. I find that there is essentially no support for the administrative deletion of this article, no consensus for the merger of the content, and that editors supporting retention of the article persuasively argue that the proposed merger would give undue weight to the events in our biography of Laura Bush, thereby violating our biographies of living persons policy (which does not apply to Michael Dutton Douglas himself, as he as been deceased for over four decades). Notability_(people) states that "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted", but does not mandate that this result be imposed, absent some consensus to do so. John254 16:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Dutton Douglas
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article survived a deletion debate in August 2005. This, however, was before the Seigenthaler incident significantly changed Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. Even in the case of dead people notability criteria apply, specifically WP:BIO1E. This individual should certainly be mentioned in the Laura Bush article, but under current policy there is no way he can have his own article. Lampman (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Laura Bush. A young future First Lady ran into an ex-boyfriend and killed him. The deceased and the accident were certainly not notable at the time. It deserves merger into the Laura Bush article and not just deletion or a redirect. Google News archive shows many articles with substantial coverage, from newspapers around the world, about Laura Bush and her fatal crash into the car of ex-boyfriend Michael Douglas,  over a period of many years: ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , ,  ,   , ,  ,  ,   ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , in addition to some about her and the actor of the same name. I hope that the article about Mary Jo Kopechne can be similarly merged into the Ted Kennedy article. Douglas is at least as notable as Kopechne, and Wikipedia should not display bias by having articles only relating to skeletons in the Democratic closet.Edison (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Merging all this information into the Laura Bush article would mean devoting too much of that article to this one incident.  You just know that somebody would scream "undue weight!" and remove most of the information.  Then the reader wanting to know about Laura Bush, and wanting more detail on this incident, would be deprived of neutral, properly sourced information that could and should have been available on Wikipedia.  (If the outcome is merge, and that removal of information happens, I'll be happy to restore the information to the Laura Bush article.  Then someone else will be happy to re-remove it.  A major advantage of having a daughter article like this one is to prevent such edit wars in the main article.) JamesMLane t c 03:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Far too many reliable sources exist to delete this article. I also share JamesMLane's concerns about an undue weight issue at Laura Bush. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:BIO1E, it should remain as it's own article and be mentioned a la Summary style in the Laura Bush article. --Firefly322 (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Laura Bush. I'm really not sure how WP:BIO1E supports this being kept, because he isn't notable outside the fact that he was killed by someone who later became the first lady in the US.  However, the fact that she accidentally caused someone's death is notable, especially in terms of its effect on the public's opinion of her.  I don't see how it's undue weight; Laura Bush just bears expansion.  --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment When the content is too large, which in this case it is, the WP:BIO1E policy allows for a break-out article. It's stated quite unequivocally. Not sure how it could be missed. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Falcon Darkstar, would you merge into the Laura Bush article all the information that's now in the Michael Dutton Douglas article? JamesMLane t c 09:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: If not all, what happens to the rest of the information? --Firefly322 (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has about 256 words of text. The Laura Bush article has only 87 words about the accident in a 3364 word article. Putting in all the content of this one would not be that disproportionate. Her writings have indicated that the accident was very important in her subsequent life. But some of the personal information about him could be cut down a bit, since there is no basis for assuming it contributed to the accident, and he is notable only as the accident victim. He is definitely a person known only for one thing, because he did not get the chance to live out his life and do other things. Firefly cites WP:BIO1E inappropriately in calling for "Keep" when it actuslly says such a person should not have a stand-alone article, but his info should be merged into a more general article. Edison (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Most readers of Wikipedia won't care about the personal information concerning him. Of course, that's not the standard -- most readers of Wikipedia won't care about Laura Bush.  Among the minority that reads the Laura Bush article, a minority of the minority might be curious about Michael Dutton Douglas.  We can't assume that all readers' interest would be confined to factors that played a role in the accident.  By keeping this article, we can accommodate those who want the information. JamesMLane t c 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO1E explains itself with "such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime" This person died in an auto-accident involving the younger self of the first lady. That's means, to me, that the event is much more important than who her younger self went to her high-school ball with (which by itself is a relatively unimportant event and certainly wouldn't deserve its own article). Furthermore, WP:BIO1E states "that the  unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy."  Here is something else that about WP:BIO1E that may be counter-intuitive and provides for a reason to keep. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Firefly322 and other comments reasoned above. RFerreira (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.103.139 (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is this IP address's first and only contrib. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as above Libertyblues (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as above reasoned above. Sniggity 02:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sniggity (talk • contribs)
 * Keep as above. --96.245.84.124 (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is this IP address's first and only contrib. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.18.248 (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Laura Bush. Clearly non-notable. This isn't about a bunch of Bush apologists trying to remove some less than perfect truth about the first lady. WAKE UP KEEPLE! 202.54.176.51 (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. --70.77.37.70 (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Mary Jo Kopechne has an entry; so should this guy.
 * Speedy Keep as snowball. --Buridan (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Firefly322. Merge - it really isn't notable enough on its own. (aside) "but under current policy there is no way he can have his own article", unless consensus says otherwise, you mean. Keep in mind consensus still has power over policy. --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge The subject of the article is not notable, and Laura Bush was not notable at the time this occurred (differentiating from the Mary Jo Kopechne article). Nor does the inclusion of the articles relevant information (not his biographical information), cause the Laura Bush article to be "so large that this would make the article unwieldy."  Therefore, WP:BIO1E does not apply.  As an aside, this AfD is on the top page of reddit.com, titled "Bush Apologists trying to delete wikipedia page of the dead boyfriend Laura Bush killed."  Clearly, this provides a source of canvasing.  Admins, please carefully check the contribs of the voters as this has provided a source of canvasing.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an obituary. Also, consensus does not outweigh policy, Zylox.  Consensus determines whether something meets policy.  Voting for sake of disagreement (rather than whether something meets policy or not) is not valid. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that policy can be changed through consensus. Sorry for being ambiguous. ;) --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 14:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but that'd be for discussion on that particular policy's page rather than an individual article. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment was meant as more of an aside. Perhaps I should have said "aside"? :D --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 14:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha, perhaps :-). I originally thought you were providing that as a justification for your vote. Thanks for being civil! Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Just for the record, I tend to conservative at heart at least half of the situations I'm in. But more importantly, I believe in the rule of law (limited in scope and applied only with great and careful discernment). For situations where the law is liberal, I tend to be liberal. For situations where the law tends to be conservative, I tend to be conservative. For free for all situations, a conservative at heart and a liberal in mind and thought.
 * Anyhow, IF this AFD is really being viewed as demonstration/show of faith of conservative values (political litmus test instead of wikipedia policy and guidelines and most importantly the hammered-out consensus of the participating editors here), then HELL!' I'll change my !Vote and !arguments to merge. A show of some flip-flop liberal values for y'all. PEACE OUT! * smiles* --Firefly322 (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it would be a mistake to remove all of this detailed, well-sourced information about a reasonably notable incident from Wikipedia, and a huge mistake to shove it all into the Laura Bush article thereby giving it a great deal of undue weight. A separate article about this incident is the right solution.  &mdash; ciphergoth 07:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.