Wikipedia:Deletion review/Bigoted woman incident


 * JohnCD (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Brilliant. A perfect example of the utter abuse of policy this Afd/Drv represents. Numerous third party reliable sources describe this as the incident of the election, a definite and self-admitted major blow for Brown. Almost immediately, and for days on end, coverage of the other 'notable incidents' in that rubbish election article pale into insignificance by comparison. Yet you turn up, do a bit of original research and assert a few of your own personal opinions as fact, to vote delete/endorse. People letting this stuff fly as being anything that even remotely resembles proper policy backed assertion is an outrage tbh. Kneejerk POV votes are of course expected, the real issue here is how an admin can so blatantly set aside the Afd rules to shut it down after an hour, for a potential article that is so blatanly not a BLP it is unreal, is the real issue. It is not surprising he has buggered off on 'holiday', I hope he didn't go anywhere with access to British or American television or newspapers. MickMacNee (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment when I closed Articles for deletion/Bigoted woman incident early, at 17:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC), the effect was that of, essentially a WP:BLP/WP:IAR-driven speedy delete. At 17:14, 28 April 2010, there was still limited media coverage and I felt the precautionary principle, which I read as an inherent and critical characteristic of the biographies of living persons policy, dictated decisive action. Given the real-life consequences that have precipitated the BLP policy, I think it's poor form and a very questionable practice to "wait" on borderline biographies. I acted with the full knowledge that the incident could become an important, independent topic; it certainly hadn't met, in my opinion, a practical notability threshold at the time of the close to justify its inclusion above and beyond concerns over (perceived) negative biographical information. Since the AfD closure and the opening of this DRV, it is clear to me that this has grown into an incident of import. Reasonable, informed editors can disagree now on whether the incident itself deserves its own article or belongs as a subsection of the election article; five days ago, there was only speculation as to the extent of the incident's impact and indications that the article subject was unwillingly thrust into her harsh spotlight. I'd rather err on the side of overcaution in these situations and I strongly think BLP should empower admins to make these decisions for the sake of the article subjects, to say nothing of the project's ethical and legal obligations. As a reminder, I closed the AfD with"Should this incident evolve into something of greater import, the article can be recreated at a more appropriate name with the necessary context provided by reliable citations."I see no practical reason (other than a slavish devotion to process) that this should not occur right now. I've made repeated comments that I'm willing to cooperate as much as possible towards a reasonable outcome, and I've offered to userify the content to facilitate a proper BLP treatment. That still stands. As far as I'm concerned, this DRV could close now (endorse, overturn...won't affect my ego) and we can move onto the content. I'm nothing if not pragmatic, and I don't really see the utility of this discussion any more beyond further grandstanding. This was a good-faith action that may or may not have produced the optimal process, but the optimal outcome is still certainly within reach. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well endorse-to-overturn is roughly 2-1 at the moment, so the outsome seems fairly clear. But if this was to be somehow overturned and sent back to a 7-day AfD, I'd strongly urge that the article remain deleted in the meantime.  Err on the side of caution and decency. Tarc (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How on earth do you conduct an Afd on a non-existent article? This farce of a Drv is effectively an Afd on a non-existent article, which is why it has been oh so effective at producing arguments that actually relate to the content anyone could or would have created given the slightest chance to do so, rather than acting as a venue for you to show once again that your reactionary positions are entirely down to your view that entire sections of editors are "beneath contempt", and have no relation to the merit of the article or guideance like WP:EVENT in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't rocket science, Mick; it would be the same rationale we use when we do courtesy blanking and such. And for a recent precedent for an article, there is Articles for deletion/Eric Ely (2nd nomination).  During the AfD discussion, the article itself was blanked out for privacy/BLP concerns.  So, if you are done frothing, my request is not all that out of the ordinary. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Courtesy blanking isn't deletion, I don't believe that was your orignal meaning at all. MickMacNee (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't charge too much for mind-reading tricks at the local fair, because you ain't very good at it. Tarc (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tarc, please try and be helpful, and cut out the personal comments. Keep this about the page, not each other huh? - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When other users attempt to undercut my input by saying "that isn't what you meant", I will defend my position accordingly. Despite our esteemed essay to the contrary, sarcasm is sometimes a useful defense against the patently absurd. Tarc (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Kingpin's right. This is unseemly. Cut it out, please.--Chaser (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When another user assumes bad faith, it is well within reason to offer a defense. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't agree that this has "has grown into an incident of import." It grew into a short-lived media frenzy, yes, but it would only have had real import if it affected the election outcome, and the opinion poll voting-intention figures show no measurable effect at all. The day after the election it will be forgotten by all but political obsessives, except as the subject for an occasional joke. JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This would be the kind of argument that would normally be dealt with at Afd, where you would likely find plenty of people disagreeing with your analysis and your methods. It certainly has no place in a Drv, where the only issue is the validity of the closure. MickMacNee (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggestion for closure: 1) Move Bigotgate to Bigotsgate (suppress redirect) 2) Restore Bigoted woman incident, move to Bigotgate (suppress redirect), redirect to United Kingdom general election, 2010. 3) Close DRV as "deletion generally endorsed, history restored per licensing concerns and placed at 'Bigotgate', redirected to the section on the incident, any split into a new article should be discussed at Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2010". – xeno talk 16:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c @Scientizzle) BLP violations cannot be userfied, period. So that begs the question, was this a valid BLP speedy close or wasn't it? IAR is irrelevant, the actions and responses mandated in our actual BLP policy, (rather than the many flawed perceptions of it that exist), are mature enough to deal with what was a routine example of a new article on a breaking national story. Anyone who thinks we don't routinely handle these, is utterly mistaken. The involvement of a notionally private living person was frankly, irrelevant, easily handled in compliance with BLP without the over-reaction. The cache already even contained national reliable sources iirc, making the claim of limited coverage quite dubious, which combined with the clear mistake of thinking this was in any way a proposed 1E biography, would have allowed any number of other courses of action except calling IAR to early close and delete, (which then has the killer follow on consequence of auto-response admin actions - salting of this and any and all subsequent redirects/recreations, even after the utility of certain redirects even has become in your face obvious). That would have prevented the setting off of this drv steamroller, it would have prevented the one-line ACRONYM arguments which have no intention of examining against notability to dominate the issue, irrespective of the reality on the ground, because whatever you say now after the event in all your apparent good faith (which suggests to me you've never seen many of these situations actually develop on wiki), in reality, that history now means that it would take the most naive and optimistic editor willing to spend the time to attempt recreating this article (which is the very best outcome for some people's ideology), and later expect it would get a fair and rational hearing from a balanced set of reviewers according to our actual content policies. No, this content's card is marked from now on. You can see from the election article the consequences of thinking this fits niceley over there as an alternative, having not even had that as a possibility to be discussed in the Afd, as it now attracts diversionary fluff and trivia all around it, while nobody works on the actual incident content at all, in the knowledge anyone will come along at any point and cite these precedential actions as reasons to go on a blanking spree, citing the three magic initials. MickMacNee (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ongoing media comment today, from CNN even. I've seen it referred to in every peice I've read today about the election. MickMacNee (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, so, it wasn't a fad. I'm changing to my !vote to overturn because of the continued coverage and the incidence in being "the only gaffe that got any attention during the campaign" (from the CNN source above). --Enric Naval (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Overturn The rules state 7 days, not one hour. The outcome was not assured, since most of those who spam delete everywhere, don't bother checking for sources.  D r e a m Focus  01:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }