Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group of 88

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Proposal

Just to clarify.

  1. This group is deemed to be notable if “the primary subject of multiple nontrivial published works whose source is independent of the person.” (see
    WP:N
    ) I trust that this has already been established here. This group is SHOWN to be notable by Wikipedia guidelines. Please see the links I have cited above.
  2. The article on "Responses to the Duke Case" is NOT the same article as this one. It is a broader, classificatory page that includes information on this group, but does not highlight this group, nor offer individual names, nor provide a venue to discuss this Group's behavior independent of the general fallout of the Duke Lacrosse case. These articles are patently not equivalent. Please cite the specific Wikipedia policy that you are evoking in this discussion.
  3. Colonel Warden's basis for opposing the article -- the redlinks -- has been resolved
  4. Re: Arguments about the article's lack of content. I propose that this article be tagged as a stub in need of development

I propose that this discussion be considered close in favor of keep, should those supporting its deletion not show that their proposal conforms to Wikipedia policy. The case for keeping the article has been maintained according to

WP:N -The kekon (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Unilaterally changing the articles without proper discussion does not constitute a resolution of this issue. A strong case for deletion, or even redirect, must be made. -16:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is sad to see such a concerted effort from Duke-affiliated people who want this article pushed to the back corners of Wikipedia, without a snit of policy or even a cogent argument for their position. At this point, I am not going to keep responding to the same two arguments unless someone argues in terms of policy.

  • I invite you to
    WP:FAITH. Please note that I did address policy concerns - specifically whether the sources you provided above fit the definition you also provided regarding notability. That you disagree with me is fundamentally different from not addressing your stated concerns. DukeEGR93 01:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Administrators: I hope for acknowledgement that this stub has been shown to meet

WP:N and offers potential for chronicling many important and newsworthy debates. Furthermore, I encourage you to read many of these opponents as being Duke-affiliated, and thus see their capacity for NPOV as questionable. If there is ambiguity on any of these issues, I hope that Wikipedia chooses to err on the side of more free speech, rather than less. -The kekon (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

OK, I apologize about

WP:FAITH
, but what about the policy as it relates to the actual article deletion? I misspoke with the use of the word "concerted", because it looks like I'm accusing you of meatpuppeteering, and I'm not. The people you mention, BlueDog423, are of no consequence, as far as I'm concerned, as they have provided no debate and this is not a voting process. And, by the way, how do you know so much about them? Where was this information on their user pages? In any case, this is not a vote, and, so far, most of the resistance comes from "Bluedog423" AND "DukeEGR93", and I wanted to point to the fact that you two are associated with the subject in question.

Lots and lots of argument about everything but policy as it relates to article deletion. The fact remains: this debate is continuing even though none of you are evoking Wikipedia policy with regard to the article deletion. I apologize, but understand that it is very frustrating to debate with people who stubbornly avoid the rules that set the parameters of this debate. This debate is tiring. You have not made a good case for deleting or redirecting this article, and, frankly, I've stopped waiting for you to make such a case. If this article get sent to the back corners of Wikipedia -- to some poorly classified, ridiculously low-volume page, because people from Duke don't want it there -- and you both are people with Duke affiliations -- then it would be sad. I hope that Wikipedia chooses to err on the side of more free speech, rather than less.-The kekon (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few things:
  • How notable can "The Group" be if the membership, as listed, is not even "The Group" i.e. not even an accurate list of the people who signed the "Listening Ad"?
  • My take on each of the elements of notability, specifically from
    WP:N
    's "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Items in bold are from the page itself.
  • "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. My subjective personal judgment is that the events of the last 21 months will have a major impact on Duke and on Durham for a long time, so the page about the case itself certainly exceeds
    WP:NOTINHERITED
    .
  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. As detailed above, with the possible exception of one of the sources presented, the other independent sources do not directly deal with "The Group of 88."
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability. Certainly the sources you mention are reliable, with the exception of the letter to the editor. The KC Johnson guest column would, I believe, be up for debate given his involvement in the case.
  • *"Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. Quality of sources is the key here. How many of the provided sources directly and primarily focus on "The Group of 88" and how many are instead articles that deal with individual faculty members, many of whom - just like the error-riddled list currently sitting on Group of 88 are not people who signed the "Listening Ad."
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Certainly, nothing you've listed is produced by any of the actual people who signed the listening ad; however, "The Group of 88" was a term coined by KC Johnson so, again, I believe that takes his guest column out of this discussion.
  • "If this article get sent to the back corners of Wikipedia -- to some poorly classified, ridiculously low-volume page, because people from Duke don't want it there -- and you both are people with Duke affiliations -- then it would be sad. " If the
    WP:BHTT
    argument, which does not carry much water with me because, again, if the macroscopic topic is in the (non-existent) "back corners of Wikipedia," how is it better to have some component of that with its own article?
  • Furthermore, from
    WP:NOPE
    - Notability is not judged in isolation:
The best test for this sort of relationship is to ask, "would a very short summary of the parent topic be expected to include the child topic?" Even then, typically such subordinate topics are merged into the parent unless (as noted above) size limitations make this option less ideal.
  • Emphasis mine. A list of 88 people, properly constructed in an expandable box, really isn't that big a deal. It is not a case of
    WP:NNC
    - which I believe is met.
Thus the argument for a merge. DukeEGR93 17:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for dealing with policy. With all due respect, I find your reading of this policy to be completely off:

  • "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable This means that you are supposed to presume that the notability criteria is met if it shows up in a credible source. Your subjective evaluations are precisely what is stated to be not relevant here. BTW, Crystal Gail Magnum was profiled here, but efforts similar to yours got it suppressed too [18][19].
  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. They all directly deal with this group. Read it: "may be less than exclusive." What do you construe as "direct", given this clause?
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability. If you want to make a case for excluding KC Johnson, then make it already. Also, keep in mind that those articles were found quite quickly and easily. A search on Google News of "Group of 88" (in quotes) returns 377 results. I doubt I'd have trouble finding a "multitude" in there. If you genuinely doubt the notability, but would be open-minded if you saw other evidence, why not run that query yourself?
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. KC Johnson was not directly involved. Please make a clear case to exclude him. I personally think that it is a silly argument to propose that we exclude him for coining the term under which this article will be filed, and that he is pretty much a prolific, outside observer on the case. Regardless of your feelings on him, his views or personal style, I don't think you have a case that we have to disregard all work by him because he came up with the term. That's silly. Please make a serious case that he is not independent of the action in question.
  • There is no way my arguments come close to a
    WP:BHTT
    . Read the policy: "This argument is often made regarding articles comprised solely of mentions of otherwise notable subjects in non-notable circumstances" This event is entirely notable, as established above. If I was writing an article about how they are all related because their jointly-signed web page is administered by the same webmaster, then I would be guilty of violating that policy.
  • I don't really understand the rest of your case. Please clarify with specifics.

Listen, this is a clear case that this group is notable, and, as I've said many times above, this group is more notable, and more deserving of a direct treatment, than 99% of what is posted on this site. Why are you so committed to not having this article exist? Your behavior totally mystifies me. It's newsworthy, and avails itself to many debates. Go ahead and look at the articles on Google News [20]. Why don't you want these issues profiled independently on Wikipedia? Why do you want them to be relegated to a catch-all page on the fallout of the Duke case? No one is making a clear argument why it would improve Wikipedia. Why would it omprove Wikipedia, seriously? -The kekon (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • At this stage, I'm willing to simply let others chime in about the various statements made above and have the admins weigh the discussions and come to a conclusion. I've stated my impressions of policy and of the notability and inaccuracy of the page as fully as I feel appropriate. DukeEGR93 20:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case by Stuart Taylor Jr and KC Johnson