Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Plaxico




 * 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 keep with no verdict on renaming.

Plaxico
This project-space page is a violation of WP:BLP because it involves an undue negative focus on a specific living person. *** Crotalus *** 21:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Like it or not, I have seen "Plaxico" invoked many times in projectspace. You would have more effect complaining about BLP violations for such usage than deletion of this.  Collect (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I wrote it because I saw "Plaxico" discussed so many times in Wikipedia that I thought it was necessary to explain the term. I took care to source everything biographical in the essay, and to put everything in context; in fact it was a paraphrase of Plaxico Burress (and contains much less negative information than his articles does). Also, the attribution of "Plaxico" to a mistake didn't originate with the essay or even Wikipedia, see sources here (which helped give me the inspiration to write the essay). --  At am a  頭 21:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Atama. The nomination is without merit. Crafty (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral I don't think the nomination is without merit. We can and should use discretion when it comes to BLP issues, even if it's a situation that's outside our normal policy realm.  What about a cross namespace redirect from WP:PLAXICO to his actual biography, and let people draw the conclusion themselves? CNR are mostly only harmful when they are facing from the article-space outward, not the other way around. Gigs (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Its a well known event in America, and is presented neutrally in the article, so WP:BLP isn't a problem here. Furthermore, the term has become oft-used among many Wikipedia editors, and, especially for the numerous non-American users of Wikipedia, is a helpful explanation of the source of the "plaxico" term.  I would not be averse to moving this to something like "Wikipedia:Shooting yourself in the foot" or something like that, so as to "broaden" the reference, but keeping WP:PLAXICO as a redirect to it would make sense, and the information to at least provide context as to who Plaxico Burress is and why his name is associated with such an event seems fine by me. -- Jayron  32  22:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC )
 * Delete: I would really suggest getting rid of this. I agree it's a commonly used expression; I'm sure I've used it myself, perhaps even on Wikipedia. I don't think we need a project-space essay on it, though. It seems to me like it crosses the line from an occasional humorous interjection to an institutionalized reveling in the most unfortunate few seconds of an individual's life. "Wikipedia:Shooting yourself in the foot" would be fine. Even "Wikipedia:Don't carry a loaded gun to a nightclub if your waistband is baggy" would be preferable to the present title. Just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 23:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have no objection to renaming it. "Don't shoot yourself in the foot" is the basic idea anyway. --  At am a  頭 23:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per MastCell. I like the page, and in some dark and cruel way it's funny to me to refer to a guy by name who did something stupid that illustrates a common point. But it is nevertheless unduely cruel, and against the spirit of BLP (if not the letter). It turns a person into a running joke. Whether Wikipedia started it or didn't, that's really neither here nor there. Equazcion   (talk)  00:44, 4 Dec 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the WP:BLP issue is, I feel, a red herring, because we have the Streisand Effect as a main, well-sourced article and there have been, AFAIK, no complaints; and BLP refers to "negative, unsourced information", and this incident is well-sourced. But this is an internal essay, the essence of which is "if you don't want to look stupid, don't do stupid things". Makes perfect sense to me. But if it is really an issue, rename to WP:Sedgwick. Rodhull  andemu  01:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Article space is very different. We are required to report on sourced concepts that have been named after people, even if they could be considered cruel. Enshrining official encouragement/condonement of their use on Wikipedia is a different story. Equazcion   (talk)  01:22, 4 Dec 2009 (UTC)
 * A careful reading of WP:BLP indicates that as a policy, it applies to all namespaces. So, sorry, article space is NOT very different, and I see nothing to indicate the converse. Reliable sourcing in an article is no different from reliable sourcing anywhere else. Whereas "Do no harm" might come into play here, the incident has been adequately reported, and I don't think we are being unfair by adopting it. The Britney Effect, anyone, but where would you begin? Rodhull  andemu  01:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the spirit of BLP, rather than the letter. If you're more comfortable applying "do no harm" instead, so be it — but whichever phrasing you like better, the concept does seem to apply. Equazcion   (talk)  01:41, 4 Dec 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, when I say article space is different, I mean we're allowed and required to report on things, even things potentially offensive to living people, whereas not necessarily so when it comes to adopting them for use in Wikipedia. Those two are very different concepts. I wasn't suggesting that BLP applies differently to different namespaces; rather, the spirit of respecting living people, while not preventing us from reporting facts, might still prevent us from officially adopting cruel phrases for our own use. Equazcion   (talk)  01:51, 4 Dec 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep! ...Or Rename (added Rename in edit) Go ahead and un-personalize it but do try to put in something to keep it amusing. This is the sort of thing we should all try to laugh about at least a little. Good grief, if only people actually thought about this.  Everyone is guilty of it a little, but when there are ANIs where, say, someone was claiming "vandalism only account" after 1 meh edit and they figured no one would look at their edit history and see 5RRs over about 20 minutes since they were so totally defending their edits, which is okay, or has 3 puppets but they're actually his "roomates", or report for edit warring and forgot they have a absolutely disgusting ethic slur in the talk page message left to inform the person of the ANI. ...... . Or there was that time someone filed a WQA on me for bullying, using diffs of level 2-3-4 Huggle warnings as evidence. It'd be funny if not a waste of time. Can part of welcome templates ask people to spend a few hours to go read the 20-or-so official Civility policy articles in the collapsible lower template window?  That this might contradict other essays or be a BLP issue doesn't matter... everything on Wikipedia conflicts in some way, and yeah, "Wikispace" is immune of BLP strictness I believe, unless it's of the helplessly destructive kind. Technically correct, fine, even if entirely ignored elsewhere  (Stricken per an extremely strict a) It's even a completed criminal court case here. Especially see no problem, then. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are wrong about WP:BLP. It specifically states "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to information about living persons on other pages." *** Crotalus *** 14:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Add an adjective before "wrong" to make sure I get it, maybe? Can't really agree on "wrong" though, with so many nonindexed space policy passes in discussion, and I've no interest in a BLP witch hunt across namespaces, with talk pages, other essays and userboxes having plenty of violations. ... meh, Stricken in my post. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP deals with exceptions for talk pages. Equazcion   (talk)  07:11, 6 Dec 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I disagree strongly with Crotalus, MastCell, and Equazcion on this one. While it is true that WP:BLP applies over all namespaces, I don't believe this essay places undue negative attention on Plaxico Burress. The incident at the nightclub is very well-known in American popular culture and, unfortunately for Burress, will probably be one of the most-remembered moments of the career of a great football player. Our BLP policy does not require us to sugarcoat things like this – it only requires us to present them neutrally. The essay in question presents the issue neutrally, invokes Plaxico Burress's name in a humorous – but not slanted – manner to make a point while referencing American popular culture, and is not unduely cruel to Burress. Wikipedia did not originate the use of Burress's name to signify shooting oneself in the foot, nor is it against our BLP policy to mention something that actually happened and is mentioned in reliable sources. That said, I would not object to a rename. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I really wanted to say "keep", but at the end of the day it is a BLP violation. You could quite easily state that this essay contributes to the harm Plaxico brought upon himself - it's a consequence of the very effect the essay seeks to describe. It would be different if the "Plaxico Effect" was detailed and described in significant reliable sources, but I can find none. But as an Eagles fan, I really wish we could keep it. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote from above. Per the persuasive arguements presented, WP:BLP's "do no harm" proviso should not be flaunted in this way in the non-article space.  As much as I still personally don't hate this usage, I think this sets a bad precedent for use of the project space.  Yes, notable articles (like Streisand effect) which paint the subject in a negative light do exist, where such articles serve an encyclopedic purpose.  This page serves no encyclopedic purpose besides the double whammy of picking on both Plaxico himself and the person so flagged as "plaxicoed".  So I am changing my vote after careful thought; given the absolute lack of encyclopedic value of a page like this, and the very real BLP concerns for having such a page in the project space, this should probably be deleted.  I believe that this page was created in good faith, however deleting would be the right thing to do. -- Jayron  32  01:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or change emphasis/rename BLP issue, although it should be emphasised the person who created it had no intention to do harm. We had this same exact problem in Australia with the Schoolcruft essay, originally named "Aquinascruft" after a particular school whose students had become somewhat problematic in the cause of promoting their school on Wikipedia. The "Aquinascruft" essay was written after people kept using the term in debates. Eventually we decided it was best to remove the references to the particular school and make it "Schoolcruft", and expand its reach to cover all related editing phenomena. It's hence far more useful/relevant to more people as a result. I don't know if our experience in 2007 provides the way forward for this one. Orderinchaos 05:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I tried searching for sources to support the "Plaxico Effect" section - they simply don't exist.  Unfortunately, this does seem to be a BLP issue.  As an option, a new page could be created such as "Don't Shoot Yourself in the Foot" (a phrase which predates Plaxico's accident), or some other phrase that either predates or doesn't directly involve Plaxico could be used.  Plaxico could then be mentioned as an example, but would no longer be the subject of the phrase itself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but maybe rename - "Shooting yourself in the foot" is a bit less America-centric, and probably more easily recognized. Rewriting the page, maybe adding reference to how Dusty Hill effectively shot himself when his girlfriend pulled his cowboy boot off and accidentally fired the gun he carried there. Personally, that qualifies with Plaxico as being one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. John Carter (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Fun and harmless. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This essay is not in violation of NPOV or BLP. There are no unsourced, contentious allegations in this essay. Plaxico is not a marginably notable person. There is no way this essay can do any additional harm to Plaxico Burress. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 18:16, 10 December 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.