Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Juno/Melanie Maria Toney

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 no consensus to delete. User is reminded that the provisions of WP:BLP include: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.." "(Footnote 6) Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement do not amount to a conviction." It follows that this material has no place in the main encyclopedia unless and until the subject is tried and convicted. Consensus is that, even if convicted, it is unlikely that a stand-alone article would satisfy the notability guideline WP:PERP, but the material may possibly be usable in some more general article. Juno is advised to consider blanking it when not being actively edited. JohnCD (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Juno/Melanie Maria Toney


The hosting user requested userfication after this article was deleted for WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Other users have also expressed potential BLP concerns. Since userfication, the hosting user has not touched the article nor responded to questions about it, and it seems apparent that they intend to host it indefinitely as a WP:FAKEARTICLE that could not survive in mainspace. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Severe BLP violation, should never have been userfied. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Recent changes to the draft are good, to remove BLP violations. But the basic article has no future unless the subject is convicted. I don't see any need for the draft as the biography can be re-visited after news reports are published about the conviction. I'm still voting 'delete'. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see the "Severe BLP violation", nor any applicable CSD criteria.  It is just yet another violent act BLP1E.  It is well enough sourced.  Sometimes these are kept at AfD, sometimes deleted.  User:Juno is the original author, who requested userfication as a result of a WP:PROD.  That is all very routine.  At AfD I would probably !vote "delete", but this is not AfD.  At a minimum, due to BLP concerns even if not severe, the page should be blanked when not being actively edited.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 *  Delete  for WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:BLPTALK. (See newer comments below)  "Severe BLP violation" comes from the fact that material basically says that (so-and-so) did (such-and-such) when the sources all say that (so-and-so) is accused of (such-and-such) and/or that the police claim (so-and-so) admitted to doing (such-and-such).  Until and unless convicted, no part of Wikipedia (not even user space) may say she is guilty of anything -- this is a basic tenant of BLP policy.  As a separate matter, Wikipedia should be about notable things, not a tool to obtain or confer notability (or, in this case, perhaps notoriety).  If at some point in the future, she is convicted of this crime, I have no objection to it's being used as an example in an article about protest, or another appropriate place, but as written, there is insufficient notability shown for me to feel this information should be kept.   Etamni &#124;  &#9993;  07:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources appear reliable and detail the subject being charged and the subject making admissions. She's months in custody waiting for a court date.  Consider Crying "BLP!" and BLP zealot.  There is no "severe BLP violation", there is no violation, beyond notability aspects correctly noted.  I would add WP:NOTNEWS.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that WP:NOTNEWS probably also applies, and suspect that WP:Fart may also apply, although it was not considered in recommending a delete. For clarification, there is no policy or guideline that rates a BLP violation as "severe" or any other rating or ranking; my comment was intended to explain what I believe the other editor meant when using the term.  While I agree that the article appears to be appropriately sourced, the conversion of  allegations of misconduct into statements that said misconduct occurred violates not only Wikipedia BLP policies, it potentially violates libel laws in the US, which are applicable in this case.  Therefore, the wording of any mention of the individual and the conduct must state that it is an allegation and may not state or imply that it is established fact, unless and until a conviction is obtained.  The inability of the court system to move at more than a snail's pace, and the inability of a defendant to come up with money to post bail, do nothing to establish guilt.  Regarding law enforcement claims that the defendant had confessed to some conduct which might prove or tend to prove the allegations, I suggest reading this article, and reiterate that a conviction is necessary before Wikipedia can state that a particular living person committed a particular crime.   Etamni &#124;  &#9993;  08:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I am not using Wikipedia as a free webhost, this is not a WP:FAKEARTICLE, the draft clearly has the Userspace Draft tag at the top. Original article went out on an uncontested Prod (would have contested it had I seen it), subject was highly covered by Reliable Sources, will have more coverage in the future. This was only userfied a month ago, give me time to work on it. Juno (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Juno, I can certainly be patient when it comes to establishing notability. I realize that editors are volunteers and don't always have time to finish what they start as soon as they intended.  That said, I personally have very little patience for libel, especially here.  Neither does Wikipedia.  WP:BLPCRIME is policy that must be followed, even on user pages.  This can be fixed now, without waiting for a decision on this issue.  Please do so.   Etamni &#124;  &#9993;  10:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Etamni, I see no libel, I see no negative information not reliably sources. Why don't you remove the libel so I can see in your diff what you are talking about?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. The WP:BLPCRIME concerns have been addressed, although I'm not convinced the subject is notable enough to remain in Wikipedia.  Because the article is in userspace, I'm willing to allow time for the involved editor to develop the notability further, provided the article remains tagged as a work in progress (as it is now).  Changing vote to reluctant keep provided the edits are not substantially changed unless/until a conviction is obtained.   Etamni &#124;  &#9993;  00:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Some might consider that as being over-cautious, but let's call it commendably cautious, appropriate for a BLP.  I do agree that it is a clear case of dubious Wikipedia-notability.  Wikipedia-notability is not required to be demonstrated in userspace drafting, but as it is a BLP, I think such things should always be blanked during periods of inactivity.  Blanked, it can be unblanked and worked on at any time, and blanked again if still not ready.  If usually blanked, search engines, mirrors and caches will record the blanked version, and there is negligible risk of harm due to the page's existence in the unlikely case of all reports turning out to be inaccurate or misleading.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Etamni, I honestly don't see the point; this person will never be notable, so there will never be anything to "work on". If the case ever gets through the system, the coverage is likely to be the same routine local news coverage that's there now. Compare Theodore Shulman; despite his questionable or marginal notability, even he has non-local coverage. The whole point of WP:FAKEARTICLE is to prevent the use of Wikipedia as a hosting space for content that doesn't conform to policy, and "if this ever becomes appropriate for mainspace, I'll totally work on it" is an obvious end run around that. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Roscelese. I think we mostly all agree that, as written now, it does not appear that the subject of this article will ever meet the WP notability guidelines, but I'm willing to allow the editor time to develop it further to find enough material to support a notability claim, or, failing to find sufficient material to support such a claim, to rewrite the material for inclusion in a larger, related article instead.  To paraphrase the applicable portion of WP:PERP: The alleged criminal in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if she meets one of several criteria, including if the execution of the crime is unusual -- or has otherwise been considered noteworthy -- such that it is a well-documented historic event.  Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous new coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.  I agree that it appears that it will be difficult for this article to meet that standard.  As I indicated above, I suspect that, pursuant to WP:1E, a more appropriate place for this infomration would be in an article about protest or possibly counter-protest, or there might be an appropriate place for the material within one of the numerous abortion-related articles that are on Wikipedia.   Etamni &#124;  &#9993;  21:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, subject to the creator observing that WP:BLP applies to all pages, including userspace drafts. Give the editor time to work on it, however I suspect the information is likely to be merged into some existing article as well, per Etamni. I have removed the tags categorizing this person as a criminal as no source has been provided that she has been convicted of any crime. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Edit: Referring to the removal of the categories, which I missed. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 13:32, 7 August 2015 (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.