Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 26

Expanded rationale on closure review of Debrahlee Lorenzana DRV#4
This particular DRV asked a specific question, "was the AfD Close valid". This question has been asked in two of the three preceding DRVs (the DRV of 26 August was a challenge to a G4 deletion of a recreation). This time, many of the votes to endorse expressed weariness on revisiting this same issue again, and I have given those less weight based on the notion that consensus can change. So did consensus change? In essence, all substantial votes point to the three previous DRVs and the arguments already exposed there on the application of BLP1E.

Out of DRV#4 I mostly retain the following comments:


 * User:Snottywong: "Userify (...) there appears to be enough coverage of this individual to suggest that there is a possibility that BLP1E could be overcome. I would suggest copying the original article to userspace (or starting a new article in userspace, whichever is more appropriate), and have a motivated party create a neutral article using the sources available. Hopefully, this new article would highlight why BLP1E is not applicable."


 * User:SmokeyJoe: "Getting closer, but no, or not yet. The new sources are using the subject as an example in a more general commentary. This is not really coverage of the subject. The subject is incidental. Better to cover the real subject (perhapsDress_code#Work_place), and to mention Debrahlee to only the extent she is mentioned in the sources. No secondary source provided is about Debrahlee, and so we should not have a general article on her."


 * User: IronGargoyle "In cases such as this, involving controversial WP:BLPs and repetitive nominations for review, a new userspace draft is needed."


 * User:Jclemens: "But in combination with the later coverage, it demonstrates that 1E does not apply. What else has happened since then is that Lorenzana keeps getting occasional mentions. Of course, this DRV is a mess because no one has put this all together in a NEW userspace draft that incorporates all of the coverage into a coherent and cited whole."

I read no consensus to overturn, but at the same time the clear implication that a userspace draft could have swayed several votes to allow recreation. In essence, two challenges are proposed to the original AfD close: either that the substance of the article should be mentioned elsewhere (an argument in one of the previous DRVs made the point that we have an article on the Firing of Shirely Sherrod but not on Sherrod herself) and if that line of reasoning is followed, a redirect from Lorenzana to such other mention requires no DRV to establish. Or that there is sufficient coverage to extend notability beyond 1E. If the latter is followed, the applicable policy (WP:BLPDEL reads: "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis."

The most efficient way to demonstrate that the concerns have been addressed is a working userspace draft, and that one such would be helpful is the only true consensus in this round. Accordingly, this closer recommends following this course of action and seek userification if this article remains desirable. MLauba (Talk) 15:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)