Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 4

Vicki Iseman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD 2)

the spirit of WP:BLP (i.e. do no harm) is better served with retention of the article than a "...Controversy" fork alone.[1]

• Note: Added link to second AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The majority of the opinions were clearly that the page should not be retained. Happy with Philippe's closure here. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Reasonable close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. It seems the bar is being set unrealistically high here. Do we hear about monoamine neurotransmitters every evening on national television? Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generators? Iseman's become a historically significant figure mainly as a result of the recent controversy; such events naturally receive more attention in the week immediately following than they do two and a half months later. By the numbers this could have reasonably been closed in either direction, but I really think the case for deletion is tenuous. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I do not see a consensus to delete, & even the closer expressed some hesitation, saying this did not have the usual BLP provision against re-creation or userification. ONEEVENT was intend only to cover unfortunate or accidental news coverage for things unrelated to any real notability, such as being involved in an accident. When the event is related to the persons profession and has national political implications, its being used wrong if it applies to this. Its time we started interpreting NOTCENSORED as including politics. DGG (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See long discussion below about BLP1E having nothing to do with fortune or accidents. Also see arguments about the fame of this person coming from one event, being that event the publication of the improper relationship, and the non-notability of the person before that event. Nothing to do with censorship :P --Enric Naval (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn per DGG and the nominator. BLP1E is not meant for this sort of situation. BLP1E is meant for accident victims or silly internet memes or similar junk not for individuals whose actions involve politics of large countries. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, fair closure, not out of step with the general premise of the policy or the opinions expressed in the AFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The event that made her famous is already covered on other articles. The event was famous only because of John McCain's implication, and the event is already covered on John_McCain_lobbyist_controversy. Iseman has no claim to notability other than this event, so BLP1E clearly applies. At most make a redirect to John_McCain_lobbyist_controversy --Enric Naval (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I should point out that the article John_McCain_lobbyist_controversy was created by removing all controversy material from the Vicki Iseman article to its own pagespace, in accordance with talk consensus at the time, in order to leave the start-class bio with the controversy mention only in the intro. BusterD (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  So, basically, the deletion of Vicki Iseman removes our well-sourced information concerning her career, and leaves us with just a controversy fork -- think that might be a WP:NPOV and WP:BLP problem? Perhaps this is why editors supporting deletion have offered no better arguments than repeatedly invoking the letter of WP:BLP1E. John254 03:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  This has been a learning experience for me, I've conceded long ago. I hope others are learning something as well. For my part, through prior processes on this subject I've held that "one event" doesn't apply to a situation where the "event" is a newspaper article describing a series of actions which happened over a long period of time (and many years ago). After the controversy sections were removed (pretty early in the editing process, if memory serves), this article's inoffensive content put frequent BLP defenders in an awkward position: no material which was uncited or objectionable. (Of course, this was the entire reason for excising the controversy stuff.) This may have been why Doc and Tony seemed more dedicated to redirecting the page than deleting it (taking liberty to characterize). BusterD (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Heh, actually, the newspaper thing does look like "one event" to me :) Once that was removed, I assume that the article just failed notability per WP:PEOPLE --Enric Naval (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The situation is slightly more complicated than that. She met PEOPLE/BIO but it was unclear if the coverage meeting that was due to the ONEEVENT. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The commenters on the second AfD said that she didn't meet them. I can't see the deleted article, but no one at the AfD provided *any* source stating notability beyond this one event or pointed at any source already on the article, so we have no reason to overturn the AfD decision since they appeared to have decided correctly on the available information. Please feel free to provide any sources that the AfD may have missed and that assert her notability and that this assertion is not based on this one event. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per DGG. There was no consensus to delete this and WP:BLP1E is intended for private individuals who through no action of their own became a news event (accident victim, for example). A major Washington lobbyist who is very strongly connected to one of the most notable people on earth currently and who's connection has major national ramifications does not fit that category. --Oakshade (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but, are you sure that BLP1E was intended for that? On Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event I can see "only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election,". Those are actions of their own. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither of those examples apply to this person. Not even close. --Oakshade (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But they are actions of their own, right? Same as Eisman's actions, so BLP1E applies --Enric Naval (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You've delved into a classic red herring argument. Because someone became notable due to their own actions doesn't suddenly mean BLP1E applies. That's like saying "Delete Paul McCartney because he became notable due to his own actions." It's the grand significance of this person's associations and actions which makes her notable. --Oakshade (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, BLP1E applies because she is famous for one event: the John McCain scandal. You said "WP:BLP1E is intended for private individuals who through no action of their own became a news event (accident victim, for example)" but this is not correct. I think that it was brought up because of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Brandt_(14th_nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Daniel_Brandt_2 when Daniel was famous for only one bad event, and he didn't want to have an article on wikipedia. I think that at the end they moved all information about this person to the article about the event and deleted his article, and BLP1E was created. The relevant discussions at WP:BLP appear to be here, here, here, here and here. A discussion that says that biographies should not be done until enough notability is found at here. Well, there are more discussions, but this one explains a bit the arbcom case situation (I found no link to the actual case). Basically, no source has made a bibliography of Iseman as a notable person by herself, they only talk about her because of that event, so this is the same case as Brandt, and BLP1E *does* apply. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Saying that we should apply BLP1E to McCartney is fallacious since he launched several notable records while being a member of the Beatles and after that (aka multiple events). In comparison, a singer who has only released one famous record could have BLP1E applied to him and his article merged into the record's article. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're still only throwing up a red herring argument to refute mine. All you're doing is pointing to my "through no action of their own" statement and refuting that (which I concede, btw) and suggesting that negates the rest of my argument. Even if her "actions were her own," BLP1E still doesn't apply as it was created for the "assumption of privacy" for private individuals. Powerful Washington lobbyists who are closely associated with one of the most currently notable persons in the world is not in any manner a "private individual". The silly Daniel Brandt comparison has nothing to do with this as the notability and secondary sources coverage of him were nothing as compared to this person. As memory serves, Mr. Brandt lobbied very passionately to have his article removed for privacy reasons and used his case as a cause célèbre to demonstrate how Wikipedia infringes on the privacy of private individuals. There is no such request from Ms. Iseman and likely there never will be as this is not a private individual. --Oakshade (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BLP1E states "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." No such source was given, aka BLP1E applies. The next sentence says "Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability (...)". Neither AfD not AfD2 provided *any* sources that Iseman had independient notability *before* that event or any sources that covered Iseman out of the context of that event. So, AfD2 was correct on applying BLP1E, and this DRV should endorse that decision (and, of course, if Iseman has no independient notability, then she has as much right of privacy as any other living person that hasn't independient notability). Notice that BLP1E gives no weight to the fact that the person has asked for the article to be removed or not, and, actually, it does not even mention it. So, now, can you point us at any source that indicates independient notability and that the AfDs ignored so that we can overturn the deletion? Actually, right now, I would be happy to be pointed at *any* source that indicates indenpendient notability, independently of whether it appeared at the AfDs or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, I got a bit derailed with "no actions of their own" thing. I'm happy that you conceded so I won't have to search for the arbcom link and read that boring thing :D --Enric Naval (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (Short indent for readability.) First of all, she's not notable for just "one event" but an ongoing major controversy that has currently major and potentially historic ramifications. The first paragraph WP:BLP1E (you only quoted the 2nd) states, "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them." (underline added by me). This is not by any manner an "essentially low profile" person as which are the people WP:BLP1E clearly states applies to. --Oakshade (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• the one event is when it was published that she had an improper relationship with John McCain. Do you have any sources showing that she was a high profile person before that? Any sources making whole articles about her that are not on the context of that improper relationship? --Enric Naval (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Two things. First you're choosing to ignore the main point of WP:BLP1E and why it was created; for the protection of private individuals (have a browse of its history if you don't believe me). That's why WP:BLP1E clearly states it's for "essentially low profile" persons. Secondly, "one event" refers to stories like "Harrisburg man accidentally cuts off foot with lawnmower," which of course is one event about an "essentially low profile person," not an ongoing major controversy about a major Washington lobbyist and her connections with one of the most notable persons on earth, which you are so desperately trying to label as "one event." WP:BLP was specifically created for privacy reasons and accuracy. This is not an "essentially low profile" individual. --Oakshade (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (sorry for extremely long comments, but I like playing with google)
• I assure you that I'm not ignoring it. You see, on the two AfDs only two sources were provided where she was mentioned outside the context of the event here and [2], both of them trivial coverage. No articles dedicated to her, no analysis of her activities, no news article at all about any of her lobbying activities. So, a low profile person, a run-of-the-mill lobyist. Since they were no sources indicating that she was really a high profile lobbyist at all, then the claim of privacy does apply. She could have passed the rest of her life getting only trivial mentions on lists of lobbyists.
• On the other hand, they gave about 7-8 sources showing coverage of Iseman and McCain. They also showed how google news shows several results for Vicky Iseman[3](14 results right now) and every single result is related to McCain. Actually try to search the same words without McCain[4], and you only get one result from 2008 (after the event) and it makes a passing mention to Iseman as someone that would not make publicity tours.
• Let's have fun with raw google hits, +"Vicky Iseman" gets 6890 hits [5] and trying to reduce all appeareances of McCain you only get 287 hits[6], and on the first page of results you still get three pages about the event result #10result #9result #8, one I'm unsure result #7, another is an empty thechnorati page with photos that bear the tag "Vicky Iseman"result #6 another is a blog post with a "vicky iseman" tag that brings to a blog post about corruption on politics that has a link called "who is vicky iseman?" that brings to a page called "Vicki Iseman: Who Is McCain Scandal Figure?"result #5, another empty page with a "vicky iseman" tagresult #4 then you have two pages with the same photo making a parody of the McCain-Iseman affair result #3 result#2 and then another empty photo page with the vicky iseman tag result #1. Can you explain me where you do you any notability of Vicky Iseman that is not associated to the McCain affair?
• So, you say that Iseman was a high-profile lobiyist that was notable for reasons not related to the improper relationship. Cool, find some sources that show this. The AfDs had no such sources, so their assessment of non-notability was correct. If nobody can't still provide any sources, then their assessment that Iseman is a non-notable figure with right to privacy is still correct, and the closing admin has to endorse this assessment.
• Also, about being one event, every single source at the AfD talks exclusively about the improper personal relationship. They are not talking about the lobbying activities, or about corruption. If they talk about corruption then they talk about McCain, and they make a passing mention to Vicky Iseman involvement. And it's one event because the real "event" that launched her to fame was the publication of the relationship on the NYT. Btw, I didn't actually check every source, so I could be wrong there, altought I doubt it very much :P
• So, there are no sources asserting notability before the publication of the event, and there are tons of sources asserting notability of Iseman on the context of the event. So, no I don't agree with you and I still think that BLP1E can perfectly be applied given the information available at the AfDs. Now

1. if you had some sources asserting notability of Iseman outside of the event that didn't appear at the AfD *then* we could overturn it on the basis that she is a public figure outside of the event (so no claims to privacy and no BLP1E)
2. if you had sources asserting notability of Iseman on several events outside of the improper relationship event, *then* we could overturn the AfD based on that she is notable on more than one event (so no "only one event", and no BPL1E)

• With the current sources, the AfD2 decision was a totally correct application of BLP1E. We need to show that there were sources that were not taken into account. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You've completely missed the point of BLP1E. It is a mechanism to preserve the privacy of private individuals, or, as BLP1E states very clearly, "essentially low profile" persons. This isn't a private "low profile" person or an "everyday lobbyist" but one very closely connected to one of the most notable persons on earth and extremely high profile. Despite this being an ongoing controversy, your emphasis on BLP1E's "one event" is secondary to the extremely high profile this person has. Even if you insist on labeling her notability to "one event" there are degrees of "events" (Lee Harvey Oswald was only notable in the "context of one event") and to say "She might be a high profile person, but she's notable because of only one event" and ignoring the purpose of BPL1E is simply Wikilawyering. --Oakshade (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• lol, I hadn't noticed the fallacious argument: Lee Harvey Oswald is dead. BLP is for living persons. BLP1E probably could be stretched for cases where there is stress for familiars of a not-very-notable dead person, but this is not the case of Oswald. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for informing us that Lee Harvey Oswald is dead. It probably wasn't your intent, but by pointing that out you actually confirmed the core intent and the reasons why BLP1E was created, for the privacy and accuracy protections of living people. If they're alive, articles that infringe on their privacy or are inaccurate and possibly slanderous can adversely affect their (living) lives. The secondary "in the context of one event" clause you keep repeating was created for those protections of private individuals. While I respect your opinion that this person is not "essentially low profile", the overwhelming reality of the situation contradicts that. If you want a living example equivalent, John Hinkley is notable solely "in the context of one event", was never notable before the assassination attempt, as far as I know he's still alive and the amount of secondary coverage of him warrants an article of him. --Oakshade (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, but Hinkley has extensive coverage explaining his whole life, including biographical details [7], and even analysis explaining the influence of a film on the ideas that brought him to the assesination [8]. That means coverage that explains Hickley's insanity and what lead to it, treating the assesination attempt as a culmination of the insanity, and not as the only reason to create the article, since his insanity was notable of his own and caused legislation changes on persons that claimed insanity like he did on his trial. I have yet to see any source that talks about Iseman's life on that way. You still have to provide any source that shows that Iseman has any notoriety outside of the improper relationship scandal.
• Also notice that Hickley spawned new legislation ("The assassination attempt won him notoriety and media attention, and also led to legislation limiting the use of the insanity plea in several states") including the Brady Bill, and Hickley's defence on the trial is pointed as directly responsible of changes insanity plea [9] without making any references to why he was judged (the assesination attempt) so that can count as a separate event. Compare with Iseman's case, where the scandal of the improper relationship has had no repercusions other than affect the political carreer of John McCain, and nobody has shown on the AfDs any sources giving biographical details of Iseman (if the article had any, then please point to them). --Enric Naval (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You've completely missed the point. That is the purpose of BLP1E is the protect of the privacy of "essentially low profile" living persons. That is the reason that it BLP stands for "Biography of Living People." All you did was give reasons why John Hinkley iss notable even though he became notable in the "context of one event." All the non-McCain biographical details in Ms. Iseman's article came from reliable sources. Those reliable sources aren't magically unreliable because those sources also report on the McCain relationship. --Oakshade (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Now, seriously, show sources that give biographical coverage of Iseman outside of the context of the improper relationship scandal. On the AfDs there were no sources that showed non-trivial coverage of her only because of her lobbying activity or for anything outside the scandal. Start showing some sources and I'll change my opinion. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hickley became notable by himself for his defence at the trial, which is treated as a different event by several reliable sources who totally pay no attention at all to the event that caused the trial (the assesination attempt) and which give extensive coverage of all his life on details that have nothing to do with Reagan, so he is *not* a case of BLP1E. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that I have already shown that she was a low-profile lobbyist that had only trivial coverage before the scandal with the publication of the improper relationship on the NYT (which is one event). She was already connected to notable persons before that publication but she wasn't notable at all, her lobbiying activities never got her anything other than trivial coverage, it was the scandal and only the scandal that gave her all that coverage, so all this coverage needs to be on the scandal page, per BLP1E. If someone has some proof that she is notable for something not on the context of that scandal, then show it now. The AfDs had no such information, so their application of BLP1E was correct. Get new sources and we can overturn it on the basis that it was done with unsufficient information. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, even BLP1E does not & should not when the events are in context of their professional lives. The relationship with MCCain was while she was actively engaged in lobbying and is directly relating to he professional career. Public figures and political ones especially have no right of privacy, and the part of BLP which does apply is that there can be no unsourced negative material. Lobbying in the US in a major part of legislative life & no lobbyist can reasonably expect privacy. This is directly and immediately related not just to his honesty but to hers. Second, by defining the rest of someone's career as trivial coverage, one can make a great many things into oneevent. Third, any event however lowprofile becomes significant when one of the people involved is running for presidential office. That's the way presidential politics work. Anyone';s even private relationship with him or her is now a public matter. DGG (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, DGG, you are right, I quote you: "any event however lowprofile becomes significant"(emphasis added). It's the event that is important here, not Vicky Iseman herself. If you think that BLP1E should not apply to events on professional life, then you should notice that Daniel Bradt case, which spawned BLP1E, was totally about his professional carreer, so I think it's clear that BLP1E is intended for exactly that sort of events. And, again, the AfDs had no sources at all that said that Iseman was a public and political figure outside of the context of this event or that she had received other than trivial coverage before or after the event outside of the event context, or that she was famous, lobbyist or not. (have you seen *any* source that talked of her lobbyist activities that she has done *after* the event?!). Provide sources that show otherwise or stop arguing the point. We are supposed to be having a discussion based on actual arguments, not on a personal idea of how very famous all lobbyists are and how they don't have right to privacy, or on how BLP1E should not be used for the purpose it was created for. If you can't show with sources that she is a public figure outside of the context of the event, then she is *not* a public figure and she *does* have right to privacy --Enric Naval (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That case didn't start BLP1E. Brandt was considered notable for a variety of different accomplishments. BLP1E was never the issue there. Let's not rewrite history, mmm kay? JoshuaZ (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per Oakshade. The public sphere activities of this individual are significant and notable. If BLP1E requires us to assume privacy in the case of a powerful lobbyist's relationship (whatever that may be) with a powerful politician, it is backwards. --Dhartung | Talk 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Oakshade and others. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Closing admin made the right call. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, per DGG and Oakshade. @pple complain 03:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Good close based on strength of BLP1E arguments. Much of the above discussion is a misplaced AfD part3; the fact remains that the case for deletion was compelling and majoritarian. Close was fully in process. Eusebeus (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the BLP3 part does not apply here, for since this was deleted as a BLP, coming here is the only mechanism for getting permission to remake the article. DGG (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as per BLP1E process. The only source that did not discuss Iseman in relation to her alleged involvement with McCain was a brief mention of her speaking before a local school board, 50 paragraphs into the story. Her identity is irrelevant to the primary issue, which is covered in John McCain lobbyist controversy, and the issue does not appear to be "ongoing", as asserted above by one of the posters, since Google news shows a total of 11 hits for Vicki Iseman, all of which are blogs/non-reliable sources or passing mentions. If this were an ongoing issue, there would be far more hits. Clinton Whitewater (which is not an ongoing issue either) has 91 hits and Keating Five(another old story) has 34. Tony Rezko has 716, by way of comparison. And it's not at all clear that she became notable because of her own actions, as also has been asserted, since no reliable source has offered any evidence to support the "close relationship" claim in the NYT article. Ordinary everyday lobbyists are not notable, and being thrust into the spotlight with questionable justification does not make one a public figure. The lobbyist controversy article is relevant, but this is not. Horologium (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse for great justice. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

explain it a bit :P --Enric Naval (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn for great injustice. BLP1E is too frequently abused and misinterpreted as an excuse for deletion and this out-of-process close fits the bill. Alansohn (talk) 05:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can you explain how the closure was of process and how was BLP1E abused and misinterpreted i this particular case? --Enric Naval (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn bad close. A major portion of materials in the deleted article and the sources is entirely unrelated to the controversy; it's surprising WP:BLP1E was applied. Lack of rationale on the side of (more than a half of) delete voters, no clear explanation how the article met criteria of BLP1E. Beside the fact that delete voters basically said the same materials exist elsewhere in other event articles (which is false), they also seemed unable to reply to any keep arguments that emerged in the debate. This isn't a no-consensus for deletion, this is a consensus for keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Well, deletion was a slightly better option than redirecting her name to a controversy, but I don't think consensus supported a deletion. The article is neutral, and focuses on Iseman's career as a lobbyist, and as such she has had political influence. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. There was no consensus and the closer himself seemed to have doubts. In such cases, the emphatic guideline of WP:DGFA is When in doubt, don't delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see that the closer had any doubts. He only stated that he knew that his closure would be controversial, that there was "the majority (though not overwhelming) support deletion or merge", that he wouldn't oppose re-creation as a redirect, and that he would be happy to userfy. Where exactly do you see any doubt? Also, the closer appears to think that there was consensus, or, at least, a non-overhelming majority to delete or merge. On what do you base your afirmation of no consensus? Strenght of argument? Number of votes? --Enric Naval (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore article per clear lack of consensus to delete this article concerning a verfiable person. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Techno Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notable plot element in an extremely notable series; plays a large role in the first three movies and also has appearances in Star Wars video games and cartoons. It has links from several articles, and was sourced appropriately before deletion. Further, the redirect to battle droid was completely nonsensical. GlassCobra 04:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Sourcing was not adequate. Please provide evidence of real world notability. AFD consensus gets closed by measuring arguments against policy/guidelines not headcount. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There was no consensus for redirection and no significant policy argument made for such action. The argument seemed equally divided beween various options and so the proper conclusion was No consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A closing rationale would have been helpful, but the obvious fact is that this is a fictional element with no evidence of impact outside the fictional universe. The primary source was starwars.yahoo.com, far from being a reliable source, and I have to say that the term "Techno Union" is entirely unfamiliar to me as a parent of teenage boys who are all over Star Wars (to say nothing of having myself grown up with Star Wars as probably the most significant movie franchise of my formative years). Star Wars is notable, the droids are notable, that does not mean that every element of fanon related to battle droids is notable by inheritance. What's the Star Wars equivalent of Memory Alpha? That's where this belongs. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wookiepedia. Seriously. :) - Kesh (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to I don't know what. I do know, however, that with only a single editor advocating redirect and no reason for it stated, that the redirect was improper. I personally lean towards a no consensus close. That said, the solution here that makes the most sense to me is to create some article about minor organizations and such in Star Wars, then redirect the article there. I'm aware no one thought of this at the AfD, but it's a better way to deal with the article than redirecting to battle droid, which does not contain content about the Union at all. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Note that there were actually two calls for a redirect (one was "redirect or delete"), but that's irrelevant. A single policy-based argument overrides hundreds of non-policy-based ones. In this case, DGG had the only Keep that was policy based. The rest were Delete or Redirect based on notability and WP:FICT guidelines. -- Kesh (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn but I'm not sure if any action at all is needed here; a redirect is not a deletion, and anyone can revert it and start a discussion of it on the talk page until consensus is reached there. The notability of fictional elements depends on the importance of the fiction, among other things, and the large published literature on Star Wars should produce some specific references. Please note that just yesterday I redirected a government article with respect to a less notable fiction to the main article instead of prodded it--see my talk page. Flexibility and compromise are the keys to handling this problem; those with extreme positions on both sides are not likely to convince each other. DGG (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reasons I don't fully understand the closer deleted and then redirected rather than just redirecting so the redirect can't just be reverted. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and close as no consensus, because there wasn't any. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and close as no consensus. There was no consensus for redirection whatsoever. The published literature of the Star Wars universe should be more than sufficient referencing to create a reasonably-sized article on the subject. The redirect to battle droid was simply inane, as that is roughly equivalent to redirecting Microsoft to Office 2007. There's no content available on the subject in that article, so it was an extremely poor choice of place. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have a new, radical, and possibly outright crazy idea... what if we discussed AfD closures with deleting admins BEFORE listing a review at DRV? I wonder what that would be like? Could that even work??? It's probably better for the admin to see 8 or more opinions from others and feel like there is some urgency before he reconsideres the outcome, though. Always better to have a chance to say "ooops, I goofed" when there is a big audience and a spotlight on ya! This is really, really stinky. Once again, I refuse to participate in this review because the instructions were not followed, and I believe in process. Noting that the requester is not a newbiee, so I am not biting a newbiee, as the requester is an admin, and ought to know the instructions for this venue. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Jerry, you're absolutely right, and I apologize. I should have discussed this with you first; taking this directly here was indeed too hasty. However, I don't feel that we should close it, as there's been substantial input now. I want you to know that I'm sorry, though. GlassCobra 05:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  There are lots of admins that I would bypass and go directly to DRV. Some people just can't be reasoned with. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse redirect -- or override just for flat-out deletion. I agree that the redirect destination is a little odd -- Attack of the Clones might be a more apt target -- but the lack of citations to reliable sources coupled with an unencyclopedic treatment seem sufficient grounds not to maintain this content. --EEMIV (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. No policy based reasons for redirect or deletion then nor are there any now. Notable element of notable franchise that can be verified in reliable sources. I do nevertheless believe Jerry, who has always been nice with me, acted in good faith with his closure. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and close as no consensus. I saw no consensus to redirect in that AFD and how do you even get "battle droid" from "Techno Union"? --Pixelface (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, very problematic closure. I can't see any consensus for redirection, not to mention that redirecting Techno Union to Battle droid was an absurd idea. @pple complain 03:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Spartaz: no real world notability outside of being a plot element on Starwars universe, so it should be inside the main Starwars articles that actually have real world relevance. Per Guy: ThechnoUnion is not really notable by itself and the only references are from the starwars guide. Obviously, the starwars guide treats every single irrelevant detail in depth, but that's just uncritical coverage by WP:SELFPUBlished non-independient sources. Per Kesh: the admin took into account those arguments that were actually based on policy, so it was a proper closure based on WP:Rough consensus: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted". Also, the !keeps at the AfD were not giving any source that established enough real world notability of Techno Union for an article of its own, and the !overturn votes here aren't giving any source either, so the closure was correctly assesing not enough notability based on current information at both AfD and article. Also, per WP:FICT, this is just a detailed summary of plot elements, with no real word relevance of its own, and notability is not inherited, so claims about the importance of Starwars films are not relevant. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on redirect it was not *that* bad given how Battle_droid#Super_battle_droids covers the droids manufactured by Techno Union. There were better targets, as other commenters point out, and I would suggest Galactic_Republic_(Star_Wars)#Galactic_Senate where the different factions can be covered. I'm quite sure that the redirect can be changed to a better target without overturning the deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I don't know if battle droid is a relevant destination page for Techno Union, but there was decidedly no consensus for redirection in the debate, especially considering that the delete/redirect votes came before the article was cleaned up with two refs added. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]