Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Levi Johnston

Narrow Interpretations
Is there some danger of establishing a precedent here that could be expanded to many other articles? The precedent established here could be extended to other articles such as Lynndie England or Charles Graner, also BLP1E candidates whose deletion would have a much stronger case since they have not sought media attention and their 1 event is torture of prisoners and not fathering a baby boy. Maybe after that it would be Monica Lewinsky, Linda Trip, Paula Jones, or Kathleen Willey all of whom are notable only for the 1 event involving a sexual act. I would like to start this discussion here instead of cluttering up the deletion review page. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 15:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Victims of crimes, criminals known for one crime, every single one of those britains got talent articles (would love to see those nuked, but that's not where we're at), every single article on an actor with only one notable appearance, etc... For me, this guy sails over the GNG: Subject of sustained, fairly in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, a figure of great public interest (whatever we think of the reasons for that interest). He's a young man who's been commented on in every national american newspaper and quite a few quality papers abroad, right-wing journals of opinion like NRO, left-wing journals of opinion like Huffpost, gossip rags, fashion rags, quality music rags (rolling stone), quality blogs Andrew Sullivan etc... There's a very different and unusual interpretation of notability being made in the delete arguments. They're the sort of arguments i used to make for, you know, those "child actor who was featured in the toys to tots ad campaign of 1996 articles" but consensus has fairly consistently been the other way on this issue. So I'm in a funny position -- if any of these "one event" articles are to kept, I believe johnston is a figure of far wider public interest than almost all of them, so if any of them are to be kept, this one should be. Instead, we're likely to have an instance where the BLP of widest interest is deleted while all the cruft remains. All this said, AfD's that go against policy (in my opinion) happen multiple times every day without appearing to set any broader precedent.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

 * Moved from discussion page

Since this is a BLP, do we need consensus to keep the article, or do we instead need consensus to remove it? I would think the former.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your thoughts are not Wikipedia policy. Please review the proper policy concerning BLP - that is what applies to this article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am well aware that my thoughts are not Wikipedia policy. That's why I asked the question.  If I thought that I personally control Wikipedia, I would not have bothered to ask.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong forum. Please direct your comments to the BLP talk page. This is not the place for a dicussion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, we shouldn't discuss here what BLP policies apply to this matter? Why's that?  The BLP page says: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons."  You are seeking to restore an article, so the burden is on you.  Doesn't that mean you have to build a consensus to restore?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you dispute the factual accuracy of any of the evidence in the article, or that any of the information is not cited to WP:RS? TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I do not. However, the BLP policy says: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." (Emphasis Added)  Factual accuracy and WP:RS are only a small part of Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With the exception of BLP:1E (which has been re-hashed over and over and I fundamentally disagree with you over for this article) do you feel there are any other policies this information goes against? TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't made a list of all the policies mentioned at the project page. The one that I focussed on was WP:Tabloid.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In answer to Ferrylodge's original quesiton: No, BLPs are treated the same at AFD as any other article so far as determining consensus. Neither WP:BLP nor WP:DEL has any provision for judging conensus differently.   Will Beback    talk    23:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be correct Will, but I'm not convinced. Wouldn't you agree that the following sentence requires consensus to restore material?  "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally is the existence of an article the same as an edit? TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe. That's what I'm trying to understand.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (To Ferrylodge, after multiple ECs) I wouldn't agree with that, no. The question in this AfD is whether the article should be deleted; that is what requires consensus. Consensus is typically necessary for changes to the status quo, although this is misused on occasion through pre-emptive action. Since this article is currently not deleted, that isn't a problem here. (The idea that BLPs should be deleted after a no consensus discussion is unrelated to the BLP policy, though - it comes from Doc_g's proposal to that effect. The proposal had majority support but not consensus.) Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 00:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I interpret the sentence quoted by Ferrylodge as meaning that anyone who adds an assertion to an article (especially a BLP) is responsible for insuring that it is verifiable, neutral, etc. I don't see how that applies to a deletion debate.   Will Beback    talk    00:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you are seeking to restore a whole lot of assertions about Levi Johnston, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you contending that the assertions are unreliable, unsourced, etc? If so that should be dealt with regardless of the decision here.  The decision of what content to include in articles is largely independent of the decision of whether he deserves a biography.  Even if the biography were deleted, most of the relevant facts and discussion could still be included in other articles, unless they violate BLP in some way other than BLP1E.  (Personally, I don't think he violates BLP1E either, but that's an issue for AFD to decide.)  Dragons flight (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, as mentioned above, I am not contending that the assertions are unreliable or unsourced. But assertions at Wikipedia have to satisfy many more guidelines than that, such as WP:Tabloid, and it seems to me that the BLP policy requires a consensus that the assertions pass muster under WP:Tabloid.  The project page indicates that there is no such consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not dealing with article content in this discussion, we're dealing with the existence of an article. The relevant policies are WP:BLP and WP:DEL. If the article is deleted then the content doesn't matter. If the article exists then other venues are more appropriate for dealing with its content.   Will Beback    talk    00:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't quibble about this further here, except to note that the first sentence of WP:DEL says: "The Wikipedia deletion policy describes how pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia." (Emphasis Added)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been proposals that a consensus is required to keep for BLPs, but that has never been adopted, nor even made it to the stage of a formal proposal,  and will almost certainly be rejected by the community. A BLP article is just like any other except for a requirement for greater care in sourcing and a few special rules. The rules are very important, but AfD for a BLP operates just like all AfD. DGG (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)