Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd


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

The result of the discussion was... I read the arguments of the both sides. The keep side has given solid reasons why the page should be kept, and the other side has also given solid reasons why the page should be deleted. Both sides have strong points. After analyzing the arguments of the both sides, there is no consensus to keep or delete the page.

In most cases, when there is no consensus to change the status of the article, the article will be kept. But, this is a page about a living person, and the notability of Mr. Boothroyd is low. As Jenna has pointed out below, Mr. Boothroyd doesn't want his biography on WP. We should not keep borderline biographies, when the subject does not want them.

Close: no consensus, default to delete. AdjustShift (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd
Closing instructions

Rationale
This was nominated for deletion by me on May 23 and was succesfully deleted as a non-notable biography. It was then recreated out-of-process, nominated on May 27 for another AFD instead of being Speedy Deleted for some reason, and then deleted again. It finally came up on WP:DRV on May 27 then, here, where it's deleted status was heavily endorsed. JoshuaZ then got it recreated in his userspace, and then Childofmightnight took it over to try to make it notable.

There is still no evidence that David Boothroyd meets our notability standards. The article is like any number of truly "local" politicians in urban areas, who are not executive level--utterly borderline; this is a non-notable BLP article about a municipal council member. There's been no real indication that anyone will be able to make this notable and for contentious BLPs where the subject has requested deletion, there is no valid reason to do the work on-wiki; if either user has a computer they can use something as simple as Notepad or any Word Processor to work on this. Once the user is notable, they can present a finalized draft at WP:DRV. Consider: this link is the final JoshuaZ version. This link is the present Childofmidnight version as I write this MFD. Notice... the complete lack of difference in referencing, functionally? If an additional 32 edits can't do much but stylistic changes, and not address the principal and ongoing concerns of notability, I don't much see the point of prolonging this any further.

Before anyone asks--yes, I'm WP:ABF on this and assuming political concerns, that this BLP is being kept around by not one but two users as a form of punishment or hanging chad or something weird by two users in regards to the fact it's User:Sam Blacketer. JoshuaZ has fallen afoul of the AC by being removed as an administrator for his abusive actions in the past towards WP:BLP subjects and victims, in particular Daniel Brandt to the level that he illegal used socks to game AFD/DRV; Childofmidnight has been especially vocal at the AC notification board about some massive and murky conspiracy theory to cover up David Boothroyd in response to the Sam Blacketer fiasco, up to and including (apparently) User:Jehochman being a shadow member of the Arbcom and me (of all people) somehow being some enabler or something.

Once/if/whenever Boothroyd is notable, someone can present a list of sources at WP:DRV, which is frankly all that is needed to "unlock" a page via DRV, since DRV at that point is just a gauge of whether a page would survive future AFD. It's time we stamp all of the stupid in the neck, get on with our lives, and write an encyclopedia. rootology ( C )( T ) 13:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC) '''

Comments 1
*Keep: It may be pointless, but I can't see why User:ChildofMidnight can't keep it in his sandbox.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC) *Delete: per Jayron32 after 20th if nothing has changed--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: current version has no BLP issue relating to User:Sam Blacketer and in 2005 the consensus was that the article at that time (ie before the controversy) was notable. OTOH, if the closing admin decides I'm too unreliable to take any notice of, I'll understand that too.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because 1) theres no evidence Boothroyd is notable; 2) BLP concerns trump the "I can't see why..." rationale 101% of the time; 3) this was nuked at two AFDs and' a DRV. rootology ( C )( T ) 13:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Plenty of people have non-notable (or not verified notable or not sure if it's notable) stuff in their sandboxes. Tell me how it violates BLP and I'll change my mind.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The subject has requested deletion and is non-notable, so it ought to be deleted, BLP; 2) the subject got himself in trouble on Wikipedia, it was in the media for a fraction of a second, and now two users--did you read my entire rationale in context?--are fighting tooth and nail to keep his article on Wikipedia mysteriously, perhaps as punishment--BLP; 3) we keep sandbox stuff of non-notable content all the time, sure... but not BLPs, especially that have been through two successful AFD discussions and a successful DRV to be removed. Show me a couple of more of non-notable BLPs in sandboxes that have failed AFD & DRV, and I'll show you the MFDs for them that'll be created immediately. Do you have any? rootology ( C )( T ) 13:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Rootology. I see no reason for keeping article content in a sandbox if it shows no chance of ever becoming a useful article. It's User:Netrat/United World Chart all over again. As Jehochman highlights, it's BLP problems out the yin-yang, and there're no signs of progress. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 13:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete to help end the drama. JoshuaZ and CoM seem to be doing this as some sort of political exercise. User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd  is just a recreation of deleted content from David Boothroyd and Sam Blacketer controversy.  There's no sign of real progress, and the page remains a WP:BLP violation because it overly emphasizes wiki-controversies.  Jehochman Talk 13:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment is premature, as User:Daniel reversed his close of Sam Blacketer controversy. I think taking things one step at a time is not a bad idea.  I will reconsider in about two days, when that other discussion is expected to close. Jehochman Talk 21:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment only I userfied this article in good faith, based on a request to do so. Given the sensitive nature on this, I notified JoshuaZ that he had one week (which would have expired June 15) to bring this up to community standards.  I have no opinion on this article at all.  My only request to the closing admin is that this MFD run until June 20th (5 days after June 15th) so that the original terms of the good-faith deal are kept in place.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  14:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As the nominator I have no problem with that. Finality done right. rootology ( C )( T ) 14:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Politically motivated MFD. We don't delete things around here simply because some people find them to be uncomfortable. There is furthermore a long history of letting people work on drafts in userspace and this is a slap in the face to that. Jtrainor (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for the first such comment, and I'll just point out (anyone old-timer can fill in the details, if they feel like it) that any accusations of an AFD or MFD about this from me of this being a political thing in regards to the "Sam Blacketer Controversy" or "Defence of Arbcom" are about the least likely scenario imaginable. It would be like accusing James Carville of setting up the Monica Lewinsky fiasco for Kenneth Star. rootology ( C )( T ) 14:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep until decision at DRV There seems to be a particular effort to stamp out wp-related articles. This sandbox article - as long as it does not defame the subject -- is well within policy to be kept as such - in this case it might be limited to the time the article is reasonable worked on. It was intended to bring the finished result to DRV for approval. Preempting this with yet another deletion attempt smell more of censorship than with BLP protection. DB is a public figure there is no doubt about that. Is he notable? He is classed as an expert in his field. He is a published author. His actions on Wikipedia have attracted world-wide media attention, which would not have happened if Sam Blacketer had been Joe Blogs but was propelled by his previous minor notability. Pointing the spotlight on DH has helped established that. OTOH I do agree that the emphasis of the final article has to be the person and not this relatively minor incident. Agathoclea (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the original intent was to bring this to MFD and not DRV for approval, per the original terms of the userfication, see: . This MFD did jump the gun by a day or two, but the intent of the deal worked out was that this would always be handled in this forum.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  14:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then see this as Keep as notable but fix any concerns of unsourced negative information and WP:UNDUE ie '''Fix not delete. Agathoclea (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jimbo Wales ("fairly clear BLP violation") and puke to one-up Thatcher . --Hans Adler (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In case there is any doubt: I do have policy-based arguments, e.g. lack of notability, intent to improperly recreate a properly deleted article, attack page against another editor in user space, technical violation of WP:OUTING. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While there is WP:BLP violation, I do not thing there is any outing. Boothroyd has identified himself and does not appear to be complaining about any invasion of privacy. He is requesting courtesy deletion of the article on grounds that he's borderline notable. Jehochman Talk 21:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Userdrafts are allowed. Having a draft in userspace was specifically allowed by the closer of the DRV so your claim that there's an intent to "improperly recreate a properly deleted article" is ridiculous. Lack of notability is a claim that should be decided at a proper DRV after people have had time to assemble sources. Calling this an attack page is simply so ridiculous I need to wonder if you've actually read the draft in question. And claiming that there is any violation of OUTING (even a "technical" one) is simply false given that he stated who he was on Wiki. Moreover, if OUTING prevents us from working on actual encyclopedic topics, we have a problem. The encyclopedia takes priority. To use the obvious hypothetical, if the New York Times outed a notable individual as being a specific editor and it was relevant to their article, having a mention in their article would not be a problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it would be OK for me to start working on User:Hans Adler/Joshua Zelinsky, using all the non-notable, non-reliable stuff I can find on the web? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a strawman argument in that we've already had at least one AfD that decided that Boothroyd was notable so working on an article to make the community happy about it again isn't the same at all. Furthermore, I'm not someone who has become publicly involved in politics. And there'd be a whole POINT issue. But, if you genuinely think that I'm notable and want to demonstrate that feel free to work on a page in your userspace (if you want, I'll even help you assemble sources. I don't think I'm notable but I see nothing wrong with you trying to do show otherwise). I'd hope that the draft be NOINDEXed as the Boothroyd draft is. I'd hope that you wouldn't use "all" the "non-reliable stuff" you can find on the web, just as we have not done so in this draft. Indeed, all the sources used are from mainstream publications and such that are generally considered reliable. But subject to minimal constraints of reasonability feel free. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are seriously arguing that this deletion discussion from 2005 carries any weight now? Where a guy of at most borderline notability asked for his article, which had no 3rd-party sources whatsoever, to be deleted, and since WP:BLP didn't exist yet it was kept for spurious reasons? I think it can hardly get more silly than that. This article is wrong for exactly the same reasons that an article on you would be wrong. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing that a) that the discussion has non-zero weight and b) he didn't request a courtesy deletion in the sense of "I don't want an article" but he asked for its deletion in the "I'm not sure I'm notable". That distinction should be pretty clear. In any event, that was only one example of a variety that I listed. And if you think in good faith that I might be notable you are welcome to try to establish a draft showing that. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Giving non-zero weight to a pre-BLP deletion discussion full of inane arguments? OK, you win. This is the point where I stop assuming good faith. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. The relevant issue is that the community decided that it was notable. That's the primary issue relevant from that discussion. The introduction of new policies doesn't make everything magically operate on a blank slate. You are entitled to disagree with that position (although I'd be very curious if you could expand your reasoning as to why you disagree) but thinking otherwise doesn't mean bad faith. Please understand that just because you disagree with someone, even disagree strongly, is not a reason to "stop assuming good faith"(your words, not mine). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to add, so you can stop digging. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The nom is filled with misinformation. The article was kept for four years. The subject did not request that it be deleted or indicate that they wanted it deleted, they nommed it in 2005 saying they weren't sure they were notable enough and their friends all decided they were to which they made no objection. There's been a lot more news coverage to establish notability since then. There's an article on the subject'sbook. The recent deletion was totally out of process lasting only 40 minutes after which Jehochman deleted it, repeatedly, and threatened anyone who tried to work on it with a block.


 * I resent the accusations of bad faith, when this article has been treated in a totally different manner than any other BLP. There are no BLP violations for this public political official who has taken public stands on issues. We don't delete articles just because there's bad news for the subject, especially not aggressively and out of process. I was given until June 15 to work on the article and now Rootology went ahead and nommed it anyway. The bad faith and the lies are ongoing in this cover-up and it makes the whole situation stink much worse than the initial story. The lie that there aren't more sources is also disproved by those I posted on the articles talk page so I could add them. There is a rush to delete this article because powerful editors want it to go away and don't mind breaking our rules and violating our practices and integrity to do so. They owe us all an apology. And furthermore a sitting arbcom member threatened a user working on it in their userspace that their desysop review would be jeopardized if they continued to work on the article because arbcom didn't like people working on the article.ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * comment And to further the misinformation, the nominator has apparently conflated various misconceptions CoM had with various accusations against me which all have zero relevance to the matter at hand (never minding that I've repeatedly denied those accusations and am in the process of appealing to the ArbCom (again something the nominator knows, but apparently doesn't feel a need to mention)). The closer of the DRV agreed to allow 7 days of work time on this and to see what happened. Apparently, Rootology for reasons I don't fully understand isn't happy with that. (The fact that I'm also likely to support Sam in his RfA doesn't really jibe with the nominator's narrative but that's again how things seem to work). JoshuaZ (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. It's "deleted status" (that assertion is a joke in itself seeing as it was debated for barely two hours and deleted twice by the same admin for various specious reasons, none of which were valid for either a speedy or an incredibly short length of debate) was not "heavily endorsed" at DRV in the slightest. This is a NOINDEX user space copy of an article being prepared so that it can legitimately go for a full length deletion debate while being publicly viewable (not conveniently invisible as happened at DRV). If the BLP concerned admins are so insistent that this is still a BLP violation, the use your powers as they are defined, and speedy delete it as an attack page, otherwise, stop your manipulation of the deletion processes to suit some of your already wideley known personal views of the merits of the article, and allow the community to decide this article's fate in the proper manner. If prior admins hadn't made such a ball's up of the administration of it in the first place, this whole issue would not have been spread over umpteen venues already. MickMacNee (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I would just like to make a couple additional points regarding this abusive out of process deletion campaign over an article being worked on in good faith in userspace with permission: if there are any BLP violations in the article as it now stands, please remove them. Notability is typically assessed at a fair AfD hearing. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the invitation. If the edit sticks I will change my !vote from "delete and puke" to "delete", since non-notability and out-of-process recreation will be the only remaining issues. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. In what universe is any mention of a well-sourced event that was reported internationally constitute a BLP violation simply for mentioning it? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Puke again. In the same universe in which the press gets almost everything wrong about the event and we know this. In other words: in the same universe in which this is a huge BLP violation. I am very much surprised to find myself supporting a bloke who works for Bush's poodle's party, but what is going on here is incredibly immature. We know that all the sources for this articles are unreliable, because we know that almost everything they say is either wrong or severely misleading. See Talk:Sam_Blacketer_controversy for a longer explanation. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we know that some of the sources got some details severely wrong. Thus, we need to be careful in their use. That doesn't make them any less of reliable sources. And it would be appreciated if one could refrain from such remarks as "puke" which are wonderful for calling for emotional reactions but aren't very useful as logical arguments go. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Rootology.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  18:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as there has been good work going on at the page in userspace which should be allowed to continue, and Keep as subject has received coverage in multiple secondary sources over a time period, even prior to recent events. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you link to the article you wrote about Boothroyd's book. That might help your argument. I am not opposed to a proper article, but the page that's currently hanging around userspace is so defective that it needs to be fixed pronto or go away. Jehochman Talk 21:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, the book written by David Boothroyd is Politico's Guide to the History of British Political Parties. Cirt (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that you could write an article about the book might indicate the possibility of writing one about the author. Up to now I have supported deleting the articles we've had about Boothroyd because none of them, nor any prior revision complied with WP:BLP.  That's not to say that somebody couldn't write a proper article, but until one is written, I think we are better off deleting.  People can save the old content on their local machines to work on it until there is an acceptable revision to post to Wikipedia for consideration. We also need to consider the subject's request for courtesy deletion.  If he's borderline notable, we should respect his request. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that you could write an article about the book might indicate the possibility of writing one about the author. Most certainly agree with this, his notability from coverage in secondary sources, in addition to reception of his overall work, is enough to write a good article, prior to this coverage in the press of recent events. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * keep This constitutes a BLP compliant draft. There appear to be a number of serious misconceptions, most of which have already been dealt with. However, one thing that needs to be clear is that this is a NOINDEX(i.e. not google searchable) page that constitutes a draft. Claims of UNDUE weight about the recent issues while interesting do not by themselves create a BLP violation when we are working on a draft. No one is claiming that any statements made therein is false and undue by itself is a difficult and subjective matter. If we followed this logic through, drafts of BLPs would never be acceptable. Moreover, the article is making steady progress as we are finding more material about Boothroyd's successful career. Building articles takes time. That process is still ongoing. Let us ask, would we allow such a draft if it had nothing to do with Wikipedia? The answer seems to be yes. Let us then evaluate this with those same objective standards. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you take out the questtionable or challenged content, and work on the basics first? Start with thoroughly reliable and unchallenged sources to begin.  Jehochman Talk 21:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware there's zero being claimed to be factually incorrect in the current version. The sole claim at this point is UNDUE. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My suggestion: take out all the navel gazing, self-referential stuff. Show that a proper article can be written about him, ignoring his involvement in Wikipedia.  Then, when that's done, toss in one or two sentences about his involvement here.  Jehochman Talk 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So let me understand, is that content being actually challenged? Moreover, this is a bit strange in that it increases that bound for an article to be notable. It might be that he meets notability with all the coverage together but not without that content. If the desire is to make the strongest possible case for keeping the article that doesn't work. I will however note that the content about the Wikipedia matter has been limited to only a few sentences. How many sentences that should actually have is an editorial decision that should be essentially decided if a decision to keep an article is made. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you also address the issue of why we'd write an article about a borderline notable subject after that subject has twice requested that the article be deleted? Why is it so important to write this article when the subject does not want it? Jehochman Talk 21:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's easy to do but not relevant to the above. First, of all. Boothroyd has not "twice requested" that the article be deleted. A few years ago express the position that he wasn't notable. The community disagreed. That's not a request for deletion in the same sense of courtesy deletion. The second time he gave what frankly seemed like a pretty non-committal opinion making it clear that his friends consider the entire thing to be more silly than anything else. Hardly a stirring example of deep emotional hurt or anything like that. Even if he had made a serious request for deletion, there's no consensus about under what circumstances we should allow courtesy deletions. One of the more common standards is that we honor such requests when people are not willing public figures. As an elected politician, he is a willing public figure.
 * Incidentally, I'm becoming increasingly amused that even as all the claims of BLP are being made here and at the AfD for the general controversy article, I'm apparently the only Wikipedian who is bothering to go and explain in the comments sections of various newspapers and other websites what actually happened and why the Cameron edits were misrepresented. Apparently BLP applies on Wikipedia and stops as soon as a web address doesn't start with en. 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * correction I claimed above that Boothroyd seemed not that strongly inclined to desire deletion of this article. There's other evidence that I've run across that suggests that that analysis may be incorrect. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Like Boothroyd himself saying,
 * "The subject repeats his request made four years ago for deletion."
 * Which was right in AFD #2? rootology ( C )( T ) 01:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, he did that but his deletion reasons for 2 years ago were simply about notability. Furthermore, after that comment he made this remark. So his views seemed to be a bit more complicated. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your calendar is off by 2 years. The first deletion discussion was in August 2005. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you were done commenting? But thanks for pointing that out. Not sure why I wrote 2. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're conflating issues and articles, Joshua. On David Boothroyd, "The subject repeats his request made four years ago for deletion." is unambiguous as possible. "Delete". The second one is about Sam Blacketer controversy, a separate article. We have no evidence of any complication of his views on David Boothroyd, but what we selectively choose to interpret of it. rootology ( C )( T ) 02:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly the case. If so, that's even more reason for me to state that my understanding was incorrect. This section was after all about me saying I was wrong, so... JoshuaZ (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're getting "possibly" from in any kind of logical explanation, or unwilling to admit the veracity of the subject's own words outright, but if it works for you, OK. Saying "Delete me" is as day is unto night, and I'll leave it at that. rootology ( C )( T ) 02:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why we're discussing this since I've already agreed I was wrong. The issue in question appears to be that I (erroneously) concluded an unjustified degree of connection between his attitude about having articles about Boothroyd and his attitude about an article about the controversy. The issue is not as you put a question to the veracity of his words, but rather attempting to interpret the degree of emphasis and intensity intended in those words and the precise motivation behind the request for deletion (in particular, "I don't think I'm notable so this should get deleted" and "I don't want to have an article so delete me" are very different issues). My interpretation rested in part on an assumption that Sam's attitude towards an article focusing on him was closely tied up in his attitude towards an article about the recent events. This assumption, while plausible at the time, was apparently wrong. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments 2

 * Keep Harmless user space page. The page is well sourced and I don't see any contentious or other potentially libelous material on it that would justify deleting this out of someone's userspace. Triplestop (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has this hobby of writing about every last person who has made the news. &mdash;harej (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article in user space, which is unlikely to be kept if in the main namespace, and the subject requests deletion. snigbrook (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: The draft is BLP compliant and work in the userspace, which has a NOINDEX property, should continue. The individual has received coverage in multiple, secondary and reliable sources over a lengthy time period. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  15:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepFrom what I can see the individual is marginally notable but because there are several marginally notable reasons (councillor, spoke against ban on gay flags, spoke for RR statue, spoke against removal of graffiti-art, wikipedia editing), he has enough notability for an article. Since we don't, and this is just in user space, I don't see much point in this discussion. There are no BLP violations, no OUTING that isn't already out there. Keep it. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is our custom to delete marginally notable BLPs when the subject requests deletion (as has happened here). Can you explain why we should make an exception here?  Jehochman Talk 16:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is a factor to be considered rather than a custom (if for no other reason than that the definition of 'marginally' is inherently fuzzy). In this particular case, and I refer to David Boothroyd rather than User:ChildofMidnight/David_Boothroyd, the individual is a publicly elected official and the article largely consists of public acts of the person and it is already difficult to think of why including public acts on wikipedia is a problem. Additionally, while I'm all for respecting the privacy of individuals, politicians generally give up that right when they take office and I don't think there is enough reason to make an exception for Mr. Boothroyd. (I also think that several marginal reasons for notability add up to more than mere marginal notability but, even on the margin, I think that the article should be kept.)--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By "publicly elected official" - you mean, "councillor for Westminster's Westbourne ward" (from the article's text). Westbourne has had to be linked to Westbourne, London and ward to ward because the ward he represents of a local council is not notable. WP:POLITICIAN says "international, national or first-level subnational" - a mayor *might* qualify, a humble councillor would not. We then go onto "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" which is necessary to prop up "an elected local official" for notability. This is also absent. Orderinchaos 04:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misinterpreting what RegentsPark was saying. He isn't asserting that Boothroyd meets notability due to WP:POLITICIAN (indeed, I don't think anyone has tried to claim that so why you bring this up here and below isn't at all clear to me) but rather that he is a politician which as a publicly elected official is relevant for consideration of how much weight to give a courtesy deletion request from a willing public figure (and its hard to be more of a public figure than a politician). JoshuaZ (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a user-page draft, and, the panicking of certain editors aside, BLP-compliant. Demands by subjects for deletion are, most, a courtesy, and WP is not under any obligation whatsover to fulfill them.--Calton | Talk 02:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no current standard on under what circumstances they should be deleted(there's nothing resembling consensus as to what constitutes marginal notability among other issues). And the deletion of an article in mainspace is a distinct issue from a draft in userspace where individuals are trying to demonstrate sufficient notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can't find any mythical "BLP concerns" in this extremely well-sourced rough draft. TotientDragooned (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because they were deleted.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Rootology and Boothroyd. He's not notable as a politician. This controversy has not received wide-spread attention in multiple reliable news sources. It's been inaccurately reported, libeling him. It's a non-notable event and, for all the same reasons the controversy article was deleted coupled with the reasons for the original BLP being deleted, this version should then be deleted as well. The cherry on top is the fact that the Boothroyd requests deletion. لenna  vecia  23:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And in what universe does any of that mean that people can't work on drafts in userspace to demonstrate notability? Or for that matter, how does it deal with the fact that there are many sources having nothing to do with the controversy at all as you can see from reading the current draft? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re "many sources" – if I see this correctly, you have one (1) article in a local newspaper which covers a then upcoming local election in expert interview style, calling him an "election expert". What we learn about him from this interview is that he is an "election analyser from London-based Indigo Public Affairs consultancy". That's it. There is something very obviously wrong with an article that cites such a trivial source twice. Everything else seems to be "man in the street committee" type interviews that typically produced a single sentence each in an article about some political topic. Apart from the Register story on 26 May and 7 newspapers taking it up on 6/7 June. This Wikipedia story overshadows everything else, but it's still nothing. There is only one fitting word for writing an encyclopedia article that details the voting behaviour of a local councillor (for a rainbow flag, against a graffiti removal, for a Reagan statue): obsessive. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I don't see anything obsessive in an attempt to make an article about an individual. Attempting to write encyclopedia articles is what we do here. And, this is again, an individual whom there was enough info such that at least one discussion found the individual to meet WP:N. Moreover, there are other sources not currently incorporated in the article (for example Politico's Guide to the History of British Political Parties which is currently a separate article). Simply dismissing his remarks as a major member of the council especially when he frequently the only committee member quoted is at best misleading. Moreover, contrary to your claim that the other sources produced single sentences each, the other sources frequently have further details. Even if none of this were the case, acussations such as yours and your other remarks don't answer the questions given at all. In what universe do any of these concerns mean people cannot work on drafts in userspace to cooperate with other editors in an attempt to assemble notability? Instead of gratuitous name calling in edit summaries and in comments, perhaps you could answer the question. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Attempting to write encyclopedia articles is what we do here. That's true. That's the goal of Wikipedia. Encyclopedic content creation. Hey, tell me, what encyclopedias have a page for David Boothroyd in them? What encyclopedias have a page on anyone of comparable notability to Boothroyd? We're in the business of writing articles that are notable. Boothroyd is not. You're in the business, and have been for a while, of writing BLPs on marginally notable individuals against their wishes. Our purposes on this project conflict, Joshua. A blessed fact for the living victims of Wikipedia biographies. Also, your attempt to color this article as anything other than pathetic is ridiculous. Many sources. What a joke. لenna  vecia  01:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand how things might look like that at a superficial level. However, much of what you have stated above is either misguided, inaccurate, or simply wrong. To begin with, you ask "what encyclopedias have a page for David Boothroyd in them? What encyclopedias have a page on anyone of comparable notability to Boothroyd?" While the first question has an answer of none the second has an answer of "quite a few." For example, Wikipedia itself has biographies of olympic athletes of all levels, many of whom are far less notable than Boothroyd. Moreover, their notability is a shade more involuntary: they have become notable purely through the inevitableness of notability when one is in the top of one's profession. This is in contrast to voluntary notability by joining politics. And I can give evidence of people of even lower levels of notability. Various encyclopediae devoted to Star Wars, Star Trek and Dr. Who for example have entries of people (especially actors but also stunt men, makeup people, prop men etc. ) of notability far less than anything we would ever have on this project. Moreover, claiming that Boothroyd is not notable is a bit odd given that a) one of the issues that needs to be discussed and thus requires time to construct a possible article b) whether or not he is notable is not even the issue which this MfD is to discuss, rather is there enough plausible notability such that a NOINDEX draft can be worked on by a group of people. Moving on in your above comment, your statement that I am in "in the business, and have been for a while, of writing BLPs on marginally notable individuals against their wishes" is about as inaccurate a statement as I can imagine. I disagree with you about what our standard should be for allowing opting out. In particular, I favor a standard of willing public figures. Moreover, I think that the community needs to be much more careful and think in much more detail about how we will handle articles when the subject does not desire to have one. You are of course, welcome to look at the list of articles I have begun which is listed at User:JoshuaZ and see if it has any of the business you claim I am in. Disagreeing with you over what standards should be in such cases does not make me some evil caricature, as much as you seem to want to think so. Individuals can disagree as reasonable people without throwing around such acussations. Likewise, I suspect that your claim that my purpose and your purpose conflict on this project is incorrect. My primary purpose and (I presume) your primary purpose is help construct an encyclopedia. We may disagree on how to do that sometimes. We may disagree on what that encyclopedia should encompass. But our purposes are aligned. If you think otherwise, then I feel very sorry for you.  JoshuaZ (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, this seems solely to exist to disparage the subject which is a BLP no-no. Sweeping a bunch of little bits together to weave a BLP together when the subject finds it distasteful and has only served to cause problems seems like a really bad idea. This is the kind of thing that drives people away from Wikipedia when we should be working to do the opposite. The sourcing issues to the one scandal also seem to counter BLP so get rid of and move on. Wikipedia is not a battleground and we don't write articles to shame or make some WP:Point which is what this feels like. -- Banj e  b oi   01:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnotable London councillor. Self-referential naval-contemplating phrases like "and has been an active article contributor and administrator on Wikipedia" do not appear in the articles let alone the ledes of BLPs like Arthur Rubin or Elonka Dunin. (The wikilink is pure genius on CoM's part.) Mathsci (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I don't believe that either of those people have ever had their activity on Wikipedia reported on the internet or thought it would be. Moreover, your response makes sense for an AfD, this an MfD over a potential draft. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Elonka has fairly recently been giving public talks on how wikipedia works. Her WP involvement has been reported on the internet, for example here, a bio for an Educational Games conference in Madison, Wisconsin. As for your second point, I agree with what Hans Adler has written. With no notability so far established, this probably could never became a namespace article. Mathsci (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an argument to include it on Elonka's page (although looking at the coverage it seems that it simply is getting short mention in a handful of non-independent biographies established). JoshuaZ (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?" :) Mathsci (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I thought this was abuse. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments 3

 * Consider, is the person described in |this version of the article (stripping out the self-sources (blogs) and the council documents (original research) and the Wikipedia business) important enough for an encyclopedia biography? Does the biography cover details of this person;s life that a biography should? (For a political biography; his mentors, his schooling, where he formed his political opinions, who he is an influence on?).  Is there a single reliable source that is biographical in nature, as opposed to a news story covering one particular event or another? Thatcher 03:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, you make a valid point but for a variety of issues. First, the council documents aren't original research. They are primary sources. Using the council documents to synthesize conclusions would be original research. Second, the presence of specific sources that are biographical in nature is not anywhere in WP:N. You do make a good point in regard to the lack of material about his schooling, etc. However, the primary question here is whether or not there is sufficient material presented that the community should allow a userspace draft to be worked on. That doesn't require a shining, featured article. It requires enough to show that given time and cooperation of interested users, we have a decent shot of making an article of sufficient notability. Thus, the question is not "does this article establish notability?" but or even "is this individual of borderline notability" but "is there enough notability that members of the community who wish to work on this article should be free to cooperate in an open and transparent fashion to construct a NOINDEXed draft?" JoshuaZ (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the detailed wording of the current version of WP:N, I believe the underlying concept is that a topic is important enough to include in Wikipedia if it has attracted the interest of independent third parties who have written multiple independent reliable sources on the topic, that Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, can incorporate into an article. As such, primary documents may be useful in filling out the details about a topic but are not useful in determining whether the topic is notable or important.  People frequently lose sight of the distinction between a biography and a newspaper.  Writing an almanac of British elections that is used in schools could be a claim to enduring notability (although the editors of this widely-used US math textbook seem not to be notable, OCLC 276433333). The story of how a Wikipedia editor got into some behavioral problems and came back as an editor who was so well-behaved that he was elected to Arbcom, is a minor news story of interest to a relatively small population of propeller heads and British politicos.  I doubt anyone will remember or care in 6 months or a year, outside a small group of Wikipedia users who will probably still be debating whether we can use checkuser or identity verification or dove entrails to prevent this situation from recurring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatcher (talk • contribs) 11:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of primary sources in a manner not done by independent secondary sources is, in fact, original research and given that these documents are prepared within a limited local context by paid employees not writing for a global audience, we could make statements based on them which have no relation whatsoever to the value they have in that global context, and there's simply no way to know. It is possible to use primary sources constructively, but not as a basis for an argument or contention. Orderinchaos 04:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails notability as a politician, BLP where subject has requested deletion. I don't see why any "special" rules should apply because of his on-wiki behaviour - we may be a little too obsessed with ourselves and enamoured with our own newsworthiness as a site here, the rest of the world doesn't care all that much. Thatcher and Jennavecia among others raise good points, as does the nom. Also, per WP:POLITICIAN:
 * Westbourne has had to be linked to Westbourne, London and ward to ward because the ward he represents of a local council is not notable.
 * "international, national or first-level subnational" - a mayor *might* qualify, a humble councillor would not.
 * We then go onto "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" which is necessary to prop up "an elected local official" for notability. This is also absent. Orderinchaos 04:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What relevance is this to a user-space draft? Seriously, are we ever going to get a proper Afd debate on this article at Afd? MickMacNee (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * MickMacNee, could you please turn down the rhetoric. Orderinchaos makes an excellent argument based on facts and logic.  Wikipedia userspace is not for hosting materials of no use to the project, such as pages that exist to make a point or to disparage their subject. Jehochman Talk 13:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You know full well this is a perfectly legitimate user space draft being prepared for proper presentation to a deletion debate in a timely manner and for the proper full term, something that could have happened the first time around had you been clued up enough to recognise your initial mistakes in trying to circumvent Afd in the first place. An Afd type rationale to delete this page has no place here in Mfd, it is not an article yet. I will repeat from above, if you think this page is merely an attack page being improperly hosted in user space, use the administrative tools that are legitimately available to you, and speedy delete it. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete — As with the others, this is wiki-drama. Subject is of marginal notability and we should respect Sam/David's wish that these go. Edit such as this (and I'm sure there are others) indicate what this is really about. If kept, this page will veer sharply further down the BLP-problem road. That's the mob's goal and nothing short of delete will serve the project appropriately. Very compelling reasoning offered by Thatcher and Jehochman. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:UNDUE that can be dealt with. What this is really about is not to allow internal paranoia to delete notable and policy compliant content. Agathoclea (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The discussion here, as more generally, runs into the problem that David Boothroyd is a very active part of the Wikipedia community. Many of the people in the discussion are closer to the subject than is usual in a typical notability or BLP discussion, and this raises WP:COI questions. This applies to myself: I clashed with Mr Boothroyd editing as Fys in 2007, and so I am recusing myself from saying 'keep' or 'delete'. Is that an appropriate response? Would it be helpful if other editors took that approach: declaring their relationship to Dbiv/Fys/Sam Blacketer and/or recusing themself from the discussion? I really don't know, and so I put those questions to the community. And I put the question here because of Jack Merridew's 'delete' vote. I am not suggesting any bad faith on Jack's part, but I note that Jack was unblocked by ArbCom a few months ago, and Mr Boothroyd (as Sam Blacketer) supported that decision. I am not suggesting that Jack is unique in terms of having significant past interaction with Dbiv/Fys/Sam Blacketer, nor that the points he raises above are invalid. I am suggesting that it would be valuable for all of us to bear in mind the WP:COI guidelines. Bondegezou (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that would be helpful. The community is small enough that almost everyone has had some interaction with Sam. I've had a mix, some positive and some negative. If I have any serious COI to declare it would presumably be that I've said explicitly that I intend to vote to support in his now delayed reconfirmation RfA. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unhelpful as there is no co-relation between friends/enemies and deletionists/inclusionists as they seem to be spread evenly. There are friends who want to delete and those who want to keep and the same goes for enemies (Both terms used loosely) Agathoclea (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that anyone who has ever encountered Dbiv/Fys/Sam Blacketer recuse him or herself from the discussion, but I would have thought that anyone who considers him or herself a friend or an enemy should consider carefully the WP:COI guidelines before taking part in this or related discussions. That's precisely why WP:COI exists and, if one reminds oneself of its content, I suggest one may find it rather helpful. Bondegezou (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is a user-space draft. Notability arises when (and only when) it appears in mainspace; otherwise it would be impossible to use userspace for draft articles. I have removed the paragraph on Wikipedia, to ensure that this is not an attack page - although it seems clear that that paragraph did in fact satisfy BLP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which means you think it should go right back in should this page survive the MfD close in about 24 hours? That would be a gaming of the system, no? Jack Merridew 14:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I think the omission makes clear that this is not an attack page, and should not be deleted. Whether the paragraph (which was sourced) should be restored is a separate discussion - numbers may prevail, or arguments may convince me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it should go in because it meets our guidelines and policies. The "amke up the rules as we go along" approach taken to this subject and others like Equality Mississippi hurts our integrity. Consistency and fairness matter. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subject isn't notable. Media coverage has been inaccurate and unfair, but not widespread. A single embarrassing event will soon be forgotten in the real world. Why keep it alive here against his wishes? Anirishwoman (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a !vote for deletion on the grounds of something which does not have to be in the article (indeed, isn't there right now). Please weight it accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact taking this reasoning further - we would need to delete any article about a person who has had a single embarrassing event despite other claims for notability. Take for example Jimbo Wales Agathoclea (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There was a consensus in two AfDs and a DRV that the subject of this page is doesn't meet the inclusion standards, and there doesn't seem to be any reason why things have changed since then, so it's not appropriate for a draft article to be semi-published on a user's page. If ChildofMidnight would like to work on this subject they should do it offline. Nick-D (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain under what policy or guideline articles that don't obviously meet inclusion standards can't be worked at in userspace until a version that demonstrates notability is completed? Because that seems to be what you are claiming and it would make userfying absolutely pointless. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Biographies of living persons states that WP:BLP applies to all Wikipedia pages. This person has been found to not meet WP:BIO and keeping or creating new material on them in user space would appear to be a violation of their right to privacy. Nick-D (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2009 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.