Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Having read through most of the comments on this page, the prevalent opinion is for this page to be deleted. There has been coverage in the newspapers, but there it seems that this is limited to around 9-10 articles. Many have been using the essjay controversy as an example for a reason for this page to be kept. There is clearly a large difference in the scale of these controversies. The essjay controversy reached hundreds of newspapers whereas the news from this has been somewhat limited. If the article gains anywhere near the same sort of news content as the essjay episode then the article could well be recreated in the future. The notability of the event in long term may yet to be asserted but for the time being this seems to have been somewhat of a

tabloid story
amougst a few papers.

Further explanation from the previous deleting admin can be found here

For those that oppose the closing of the afd a little early. I do not believe that there will be a massive shift in the opinions given on this page. Any further comments will be mostly be watered down by the shear size of the rest of the page and pretty much all of the points surrounding this article have been covered and it is unlikely that an administrator will source any more useful information from the the remaining time this article has been open. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 00:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Blacketer controversy

Sam Blacketer controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is an absolute non-event, and is unintelligible for someone outside the Wikipedia community. The parent article has been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (2nd nomination)), I suggest this article to be deleted too. -- Luk talk 13:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Please, no. He was covered in one or two sources related to the incident, but this certainly isn't an Essjay controversy. He already had his biography deleted as non-notable; the event is just as non-notable. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No hope of writing a neutral article with two sources. — Werdna • talk 13:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could use one of the many other sources then? Or do we make up the rules as we go along here on Wikipedia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.
    Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and especially not a newspaper where the stories are blown own of proportion. This is a very local scale, and the edits made were not in any way destructive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per above. Renata (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Saying this only appeared in one or two sources is plain wrong, and the fact the article only uses one or two is reason to improve the article, not delete it. How about [1] and [2] for a start? --Rpeh•T•C•E• 14:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This does seem to be recieving a lot of press coverage and the editing of such a high profile article as David Cameron does just about merit an article in my opinion. This clearly demonstrates that it does have significance outside of the wikipedia community even if it is embarrasing. I found this which demonstrates it is being covered outside of the UK too. Smartse (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the article has now improved greatly in the last few days and I think that the application of
WP:OR and citing WP is sensible. Smartse (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Arbitrary break 1

"All the sources in the world couldn't save it." And there you have it folks. This isn't about sources or notability at all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giants27 isn't the nominator. Nathan T 00:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. If the story gets more coverage or discussion in major media forums, then it might justify an entry, but not as it currently stands. As Nick-D says, a paragraph in the History of Wikipedia should suffice for now. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nathan T 00:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -
    WP:NOT#NEWS at best; Wikipedia has controversies everyday. This isn't Essjay. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Indeed. Essjay wasn't a labour politician. Was there an Essjay article before his controversy broke? Because there was one for this politician. We thought it was just fine to have an article on him until he engaged in inappropriate and policy violating behavior. Does the notnews policy indicate that people become non-notable right after they're caught acting inappropriately and it's widely reported on in reliable media? I'd like to see that policy page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So far I see 4 people above who've !voted delete, but in their comments talk about merging. Another 2 have added their deletes based the people who've mixed delete and merge. I think we need to be clear. If you believe it should be deleted say delete. If you think it should be merged, say merge.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's a very good point but probably not necessarily a contradiction - I'm one of the people I suspect you're picking out, and I believe strongly in deleting this article. And indeed also that at least a great bulk of the current content should be deleted. The fact that I do believe that this incident should be covered in a paragraph or so of a more integrated article, either from a reduced version of what is currently on the page or as a "start from scratch", does not mean my !vote of delete should be interpreted as a !vote for merge. If anything it's a !vote for "delete this article, cover it somewhere else but certainly not with the current text as it stands, and what portion of the current text survives or whether it is completely rewritten is something I don't give an airborne whippet about". Your point that we need clarity here is a good one and I think actually the AFD keep/merge/delete !voting system is part of a long-standing problem - I've seen plenty of discussions where the keeps were in a small minority, and the rest of the !votes were between "delete" and "rewrite this and merge it into X" yet it got closed as a no consensus and therefore a default keep, even though there was consensus that no article should exist at that title. Since keeping here is for me is the worst of all three options, I am going to put "delete" in bold case! The fact that I also state that I think the content could be covered elsewhere in better context, and that I don't really mind whether this article's current text is used as the basis for that coverage, should in no way allow my comment to be interpreted as "really means merge, so when assessing !voting proportions, notch this up as a merge and therefore count it against consensus to delete". I hope this clarifies things a little? I suspect a similar logic may also work for some of the other contributors who wrote delete but mentioned merger (if any of them would care to comment, I'd be interested to see if my guess is correct - please do reply!). I think if somebody includes "delete" in bold, especially someone who knows the system, it's an indication that their main priority is the deletion of the article. I guess the exception is if their comment explicitly states that they want the article history preserved and the current material simply moved into another article, in which case it seems they have indeed !misvoted. I can see no delete !vote here that falls into that category though. TheGrappler (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor news story and minor scandal. Not notable. AniMatedraw 01:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It might be a matter for
    WP:AN/I, but not one for mainspace. PhGustaf (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge — How about we create a page for the different notable (read: sufficiently documented by the press and other external sources) incidents of politically motivated edits that have been made to Wikipedia—similar to
    USA Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia, maybe Edits by political figures to Wikipedia?—and merge all the related articles to that page? Each isolated incident of insertion of political disinformation probably isn't notable by itself, and the sources out there don't cut it. But what about, say, two sources for a section on a page? I'm just throwing the idea out there. —Animum (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep That the behind-the-scenes goings on and apparent corruption by members of our most-trusted body within Wikipedia is making it to newspapers across the globe is the clearest evidence of notability. By pushing to deleting it, we at Wikipedia are effectively guilty of covering this up and sweeping it under the rug, the last thing that we should ever be doing. Alansohn (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is my main concern also. Smartse (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I am not sure exactly per what policy; per
    WP:IAR if nothing else really fits. We all know (unless we choose to ignore it) that the newspapers are inflating a non-event due to the Register's hoax that Sam's deletion of picture vandalism on a political opponent's article was something sinister. The alternative to deletion of the article would be some creative new way of dealing with the situation when "reliable sources" are obviously much less reliable than Wikipedia's collective knowledge about a situation. E.g. the Wikimedia Foundation or Jimbo Wales might decide to release a statement that clarifies what really happened, which could then be cited in the article. Unless and until that happens, the article needs to be deleted for lack of reliable sources. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Speedy is unrealistic and no longer necessary due to improvements. I find Thatcher's arguments convincing, changing to vomit. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To explain the problem: The great danger with this article is that while it simply parrots what the press says, the press, notoriously not understanding our internal processes, will of course read it as confirmation by Wikipedia that everything is as described in the article. The next step might well be a major paper reporting that "Wikipedia confirms [in the article under discussion] that Boothroyd is accused of replacing his opponent's photo by a less favourable one". Then this article might report this as "According to Wikipedia, Boothroyd is accused of replacing his opponent's photo by a less favourable one". When some journalist misunderstands this as "Wikipedia released a statement that...", this might again be taken up in the article. Sooner or later we need to break this vicious circle. I would say, the right moment is now. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am in complete agreement that we have a real problem here, stemming from the fact that our self-knowledge exceeds the reliability of sources, and with your proposal that we need a more systematic approach to this in future. There are alternatives to simply parroting the press - for instance, we could cut the article down, possibly move it to another place in Wikipedia (e.g. as a subsection or paragraph in another article), and only include and cite the parts of the story that we know to be true - effectively distorting what the press say, in such a way as to leave only the stuff that is actually correct. Yet since the press have made serious mistakes here (see JN466's comment), I am afraid that even referencing the bits which are true by citing the press stories is dangerous - as it seems to endorse (referencing a source seems to be implictly indicate that we believe it's reliable!) an article that we know contains serious problems. And those problems have BLP implications in this case. I'm not convinced that IAR is the correct response to this problem, however your comment is probably the first one that really gets to the heart of the absurdity of the actual Wikipedia goings-on, the press reporting of them, the ensuing Wikipedia article, and now the Wikipedia goings-on to work out what to do about the article...TheGrappler (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

  • Delete not enough sources to overcome the BLP concern. If he was dead, then perhaps. However, BLP is in full force. I would suggest that at least coverage in five different papers would be a minimum required before this is even notable enough to consider a page on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's been covered in various capacities in way more than 5 papers. Most of these voters don't seem to understand that we've long had an article on this subject and he's been in the news repeatedly and is an author and has some notability for his corporate activities (unless that's another person of the same name?). And now we have over a week of very substantial coverage on top of that. And make no mistake, Wikipedia is a major information source, so a politician engaging in subterfuge and inappropriate conflicts of interest while serving at the highest editorial levels as a judge and jury IS a major story in and of itself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A subject wishing not to have an article should always be given preference to deletion. The failed deletion before was a mockery of the system. And substantial coverage? Not at all. It is mostly the same stuff with little new. The articles below don't show anything that reinforces, especially with their lack of a real coverage used. There needs to be at least five original sources on this controversy to even -consider- that it is worth while enough with BLP. Do you have no respect for BLP by chance? I would hope that you would, and if you do, then you wouldn't pursue this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Putting the lie to the idea that there aren't sources isn't hard. Someone said there needed to be 5. Well here you go:
  • 1) [22] Fox News
  • 2) [23] The Guardian
  • 3) Time/CNN [24]
  • 4) [25] The Independent
  • 5)The Argus [26]
  • 6) Wood and Vale [27]
  • 7)Westminster’s Icelandic folly - PressDisplay.com - Oct 13, 2008 has a story on him.
  • 8) Westminster affordable housing row

PlanningResource - PlanningResource (subscription) - Oct 23, 2008 Labour member of the committee Cllr David Boothroyd, has branded the move as “a smash and grab raid”. He said: "So many people are waiting for transfer to a ...

  • 9) Local elections good for gay Labour

PinkNews.co.uk - May 5, 2006 Gay councillors, Matt Cooke and Alan Dobbie held seats in Labour controlled Haringey and David Boothroyd held his in Westminster.

  • 10) And then of course there's the very substantial coverage AFTER his latest controversy [28], [29] Daily Mail
  • 11) The Register [30]

And then there are other stories that I'm not sure are related. There are several tech stories. Is he David Boothroyd, Contributing Editor to Vision Systems Design? Does he write on wireless standards?

That's just a quick Google News search. I understand he's also an author. So I presume there's lots more on Google Books. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bigging him up as a "politician" is probably overdoing it. To be fair he's just a local councillor, and if I recall correctly formerly worked as a parliamentary researcher. Any material about his existence as a local councillor is not especially relevant to this discussion. I believe there are 20,000 local councillors in England! Moreover, reliable sources could be found (council websites, local newspapers) to write referenced articles on all of them! Yet this is certainly not the level of politics at which it's worth having articles for people. In fact it's not really the level of politics at which it's worth calling participants "politicians", unless you're trying to make them sound important and therefore raise the "conspiracy" level. This man is not a key player in Labour politics. He's not even a marginal player in Labour politics. I'm not saying the sources you pulled up about his councillor days are not citable, but where would you cite them? Clearly they do not make the difference between
David Boothroyd being notable enough to keep, but most of the sources you identified would be relevant for that article and not Sam Blacketer controversy - I wonder if you're fighting the wrong AFD? TheGrappler (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
@ChildofMidnight: Five sources does not notability make. (Ten doesn't, either.) Not automatically, at least. It all depends on what the sources have to say...and what they have to say does not appear to be enough (for reasons I and some other editors gave above) to demonstrate that this "controversy" is notable. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already commented on how many of those sources just quote his opinion as a member of the Westminster Council. Those sources are about controversial decisions that he didn't made, and they are definitely not about him. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3

  • Keep covered by reliable sources and my understanding is that couple more papers are going to cover it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you aware that the "reliable sources" get many of the fundamental facts wrong, and have copied the same errors, one from the other? It's an interesting philosophical dilemma. Looking at how far these articles are from the truth, it is safe to say we probably have lots of articles on controversial celebrities etc. that cite wildly inaccurate facts just because they appeared in "reliable sources". Are we prepared to cite such inaccurate reports when they concern our own community? In my view, this train wreck of reporting illustrates a fundamental problem with journalistic sources: it shows what happens when a saleable
      WP:Original research. Perhaps I'll write a Wikinews article. :) JN466 16:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Are you sugesting
WP:V be rewritten or removed as official policy? Not sure where we go once we walk that path.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Jayen is exactly not suggesting this. There is nothing in
WP:RS. But then we have no sources left, which is why this article needs to be deleted. And pronto, because we are currently knowingly libelling David Boothroyd. (The press is doing it unwittingly.) --Hans Adler (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 20:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Arbitrary break 4
Comment Just to be clear, the picture Sam took out, saying he preferred one "not carrying saintly overtones", looked like this. And for that he gets accused by the international media of having altered David Cameron's entry to suit his political agenda, and we are supposed to write an article implying that he did that? It is not compatible with
WP:BLP to include derogatory information that is verifiably false. JN466 10:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
No, we are to write that the source implies that. It's not possible for us to judge for what reasons another editor edits an article. Maybe he did want to do it to suit his political agenda? Maybe he didn't? How are we to know? Saying that it's "verifiably false" is the same as saying that it's "verifiably true" - something that cannot be done as noone can read his mind to determine the truth. Seeing that it's impossible to say for what reasons Sam edited the article (and I assume he really did it because the image really looks like David Cameron has a halo, no doubt about that), we have to write what we can verify: That source XY implies this. Not that it's true. It's the same with every BLP after all, we just cannot know why people act a certain way. Regards SoWhy 10:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the picture with the halo effect that Sam took out? You can see the halo effect here. Are you seriously suggesting taking out such a picture might have served a political agenda? JN466 11:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the picture. And I agree (as I wrote above) that it's not an appropriate picture for Wikipedia. My point is solely that even although this might be the most obvious reason for that edit, we cannot say that we know that Sam did it for those reasons (alone). And the article (at least at the moment) does not claim he did it for political reasons, just that some people accuse him of that. And as unfortunate as one might think that is, that is in fact true. People do accuse him of that. I do not see a problem in writing about well-sourced accusations - we do it all the time in articles about people who are accused to have committed a crime. I know it's not the same but the point is this: Being accused is not the same as being guilty of something and the article does not say that he is guilty. Regards SoWhy 12:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The deletion reasons are unconvincing. The deletion of the parent article does not affect this article the slightest.Many articles are unintelligible for people outside specific areas of interest but that in itself does not make it a good reason for deletion.
    WP:BLP1E this is not an article about the person but about the event. No other policy-backed reasons have been mentioned (NOTNEWS gets thrown around but this has continued for multiple weeks now). Regards SoWhy 10:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
As Hans Adler has remarked that my line about
WP:V that a reliable source makes such an accusation. The article does not depict it as a fact. Regards SoWhy 10:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Unless the reader can see the halo effect in the picture that Sam took out, the information that Sam preferred a picture without "saintly overtones" will always be grossly misleading. Again, you can see the halo effect here. Is it really so difficult to understand why Sam, or any decent Wikipedian, for that matter, would take such a picture out of a prominent BLP? Does it really require any speculation on motives? JN466 11:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) We are talking about replacing this silly picture by this. It doesn't take mind reading powers to see that describing this as "[e]dits Boothroyd is accused of undertaking include changing a picture of David Cameron, leader of the Labour Party's rival Conservative Party on the relevant Wikipedia article to one 'not carrying saintly overtones'" is deeply unfair. If we can't find sources that get this right we have to shut up rather than libel a colleague and try to make the insane media campagaign against him even worse.
This affair is getting sillier and siller. I just discovered that someone had added the claim of an Indian source that Boothroyd had made "many unfavourable" "alterations" to Cameron's article. The same editor forgot to also add the "information" that this local councillor is a "labour leader". [35] It's disgusting to watch how this site is slowly being taken over by extremists who read our policies as forbidding editorial discretion. The technical term for writing something that looks like an encyclopedia but only follows its arcane internal rules instead of trying to get the facts right is bullshitting. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is kept, perhaps it could show the two images in a sort of "before and after". LadyofShalott 12:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image Sam took out was deleted a couple of weeks ago. I made an Undelete request, but it can't be restored. JN466 14:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Update: actually, for the moment, it has been restored, and is shown below left. JN466 14:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No longer. Stifle removed it citing a formal reason. [36] --Hans Adler (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure Stifle is correct. However, I found the site the image came from this morning. Ironically enough, it originates from a blog on the Daily Mail website: [37] JN466 11:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for this not being an article about the person, but about the event, note that
WP:BLP "applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages" and requires us to exercise great care in sourcing negative material about living persons. In particular, "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used". These articles have been shown to be questionable, and of dubious encyclopedic value. JN466 10:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Of course, I would never contest this. I mentioned
original research and cannot be used to remove verifiable information sourced to reliable sources. Regards SoWhy 10:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Personal knowledge shared by all editors involved can of course be used to inform editorial discretion, which may then lead to a decision to delete a borderline article to prevent further damage. It's disingenuous of you to claim that we absolutely must parrot lies as if they are true, in a context where people look at what we are reporting under the assumption that they get our POV from us, when there is a very simple alternative: To shut up. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed that we must parrot lies. "Lie" requires knowledge that we simply do not have (i.e. what Sam Blacketer thought when he made those edits) and the article just says what he is accused of, not how and why he acted in a certain way. And I never said that I think this is correct or incorrect. I just pointed out what consensus was so far as far as I can see and I've never seen anyone successfully gain consensus to remove a reliably sourced information based on their personal knowledge. Regards SoWhy 12:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledge we don't have? You are being disingenuous or very, very silly. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to be neither. I'm merely pointing out that you or anyone else cannot know what Sam Blacketer thought when he made those edits. Unless you want to claim that you in fact can read his mind and assure us what he thought in that moment, all we have are assumptions. It might be logical and obvious for you or me to assume that he could not have had any other reason for these edits than removing an inappropriate image but we don't know that. The fact that some people here and in reliable sources are accusing him otherwise shows that this assumption, while logical to you or me, is not the one everyone makes and it's usually incorrect to say "this is the
Truth™ and everyone who sees it different is lying". I tried to see the POV of those critical to Sam Blacketer's behaviour, not to state what is "truth" or "lies". I will not claim to know it. Regards SoWhy 13:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
        • WP:IAR has been applied and this seems extremely sensible in this case. Smartse (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]
What does "Americentrism" have to do either with the incident or the article? The subject is British? Nathan T 03:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely my point - if the subject was an American politician and lobbyist then there would be no question that we'd keep this article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baseless argument, and surely not a reason to keep.
vecia 18:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: Jayen466 has substantially improved the article using the primary sources that have already been mentioned in the press reports. The discussion up to around 15:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC) was essentially about this version of the article: [39] Participants since around 19:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC) are probably talking about this version: [40]. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment about timing. The user in question is planning to undergo RfA for re-approval in a few days, on June 15. The presence or absence of this article may affect that RfA, and the RfA may affect the article. I don't see any way around that, and either keeping or deleting the article will have consequences.   Will Beback  talk  01:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*KeepChange to delete, see below This seems like a complicated one, and although I know my way around AfD I'd be grateful for some feedback.

  1. This event meets
    WP:GNG
    due to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.
  2. To dismiss the
    WP:RS
    that support your position or I might tend to think you were a hypocrite. ;-) wink to nullify possible rudeness here
  3. WP:NAVEL
    is not relevant, it is referring to the construction and writing style of articles and the avoidance of the use of the word wikipedia.
  4. WP:NOT#NEWS
    is not relevant - it dismisses use of Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article, not actual articles on actual events.
  5. I can't see what's
    WP:COATRACKy
    about this, it is focused on the event - maybe the article has improved beyond versions used for previous !votes.
  6. Again, perhaps because of the improvements,
    WP:ONEEVENT
    doesn't apply, the article is about the event and not the person.
I think that's everything covered. Abuse, criticism (+/-) and other comments welcome below! Bigger digger (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re the
WP:WELLKNOWN – Wikipedia maintains records that can be inspected and verified by the public, and these can be accessed to augment secondary-source coverage as per BLP policy. JN466 14:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Bigger - WP:BLP - "We must get the article right." That means that any source that can be proven to be wrong is instantly declared a non-reliable source in a BLP. This has already happened. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jayen and Ottava. Given that we can prove the sources wrong then, playing devil's advocate, if
WP:BLP in this situation isn't quite so important? Bigger digger (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Seeing as how the sources are wrong, it fails notability as there are no reliable third party sources. The only way to "get it right" is to delete, as is common for most BLP situations like this. However, many people above seem to think that we need to override BLP standards because it deals with Wikipedia. That would set a very bad double standard. Jimbo has stated time and time again that BLP is one of our most important policies as it can have a lot of ramifications and effects, so we should all reflect on that and try to make it our priority also. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ottava. The bold text I copied from WP:BLP suggests to me that this information should be immediately removed, so if you thought there was a problem here WP:BLP would require you to remove the offending information right away, perhaps leaving a stub. The fact that no-one has done that suggests to me that BLP does not carry the required weight to "matter" in this situation. (Or, it's not sufficiently strongly written). I also think the use of wp diffs is an interesting addition for use in verification. Per WP:GNG: "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 is a good test for notability. So they may have got the facts wrong but they still establish notability. So, notability is established by the news reports, V is established by our own diffs and quotes from those reports. That'd be my current position. Cheers. Bigger digger (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"so if you thought" So, Bigger is suggesting that I start edit warring over this article? Come on, your argument is 100% completely inappropriate. BLP is clear. Your lack of caring about it is disturbing. A closing admin knows our policies and knows that your comments contradict them. Therefore, you can keep talking on and on, but your point will be ignored in closing. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you'd do it, I'm just saying that if that's the policy shouldn't someone be applying it? I don't not care about BLP, I'm just new to it. Perhaps that means I can point out the flaws in it, or maybe I'm not accustomed to its expected application, but the lack of action speaks volumes to me about the consensus, but it doesn't to you. No worries, we don't agree! ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--Changed my vote, the fact that we know the sources are wrong. Per

WP:RS: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." I can now see how the fact that the sources are wrong about the events invalidates there ability to make the event notable. If someone was to publish a news item reporting the correct story I would switch back. Thanks for your time Ottava, I look forward to debating again with you soon! Bigger digger (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree with Bigger digger's original summation of the situation. I think the argument that the newspaper reports are too inaccurate to stand as RS citations is overstated and the article in its current form handles inaccuracies in the article well. That said, I'm not certain I'm in a position to express an unbiased vote. I had edit disputes with David Boothroyd when he was editing as Fys back in late 2007 as I felt his position in the Labour party meant he had a conflict of interest that he should have expressed when it came to actions over the articles on Miranda Grell and Maurice Burgess.Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 5

Much information has been added to the article since this AfD was started. The picture of Cameron that a good part of the controversy was about has now been sourced and a fair-use rationale supplied. It is shown in the article. The article as it is now bears little resemblance to how it looked when the first editors commented above. Should we think about restarting the AfD? JN466 12:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing a relisting, or just that we all !vote again from here? Bigger digger (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, the BLP concerns say that we must use "high quality" sources, and the information from Wikipedia proves that the sources used are not "high quality". Therefore, we lack any appropriate sourcing regardless of the changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Even though the article now contains the truth as well as the misrepresentations, I am still in favour of Delete. JN466 14:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we aren't about truth, we are about verification. Those are the standards we apply to other articles, those must be the standards we apply here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:BLP, it has to be both - "We must get the article right." That is one of our most important policies. A source on a BLP is not "reliable" unless it is extremely credible and not proven wrong. None of these sources meet the BLP requirements, as they hold factual inaccuracies that are blatant. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I haven't been here that long, but even I know the "verifiability not truth" language. Do you really not know this? Unitanode 21:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read
WP:BLP. All of it. It makes quite clear that verifiability is not enough. JN466 22:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
"Get it right" is different than "truth" in the way you use it. "Truth" is used to describe people who have fringe views that pretend to know the truth. Having actual comparable data that proves that a source is wrong is part of the reliable source aspect of BLP. That is what "get it right" means. These sources fail V because of BLP's strict requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ottava Rima. Although the content might have changed the sources haven't. Even more disturbingly since I last checked the article is now using wikipedia contribs as a source[47]. It is now Original research. I still say it should be deleted no need to re-list or re-qualify this afd. It's the same problems just now with additional ones--Cailil talk 15:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to relist the AFD. No matter how well verified, the article is still just a hugh BLP violation (Undue weight and such) disguised as a news story, of which Wikipedia is not supposed to be anyway. Self-absorbed navel-gazing narcissism. More references does not change this. Thatcher 19:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how I would !vote now if asked, but I do at least want to point out that I think the article has improved a lot and is a pretty interesting example of unorthodox sourcing. In particular, the use of diffs and Special:Contribs as sources for some of the analysis in the "Controversial edits" section is, I think, pretty nice; it's not what we typically think of as an RS, and maybe some people might bring up OR concerns with it, but it is also completely factual, there is no doubt that those diffs happened and stuff like that. I think a decent job has been done balancing out the junk that was published in the news reports and making this into an article that is actually kind of informative. I'm still not sure if the incident itself is notable, but I just wanted to comment about the improvement the article has seen. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know whether the article should be kept or deleted but I must say that Jayen's use of
    WP:IAR was inspired. He gets a surreal barnstar from me. It would be good if the article surfaced somewhere else so that the record is finally set straight. Esowteric (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep One of the most powerful people on wikipedia turned out to be a sockpuppeteer. Seems completely notable enough, considering also the

Essjay Controversy article. In addition, there is plenty of coverage from other papers.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Just for reference, Sam discontinued the use of the Fys (talk · contribs) and Dbiv (talk · contribs) accounts in 2007, well before he became an arbitrator. JN466 22:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't disclose his multiple accounts and his use of them was overlapping, not to mention issue of COI. I don't think a discussion of his merits or demerits as an editor here has any place in this discussion. Notability is determined based on substantial coverage in reliable sources, which we certainly have for this matter and individual. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove the "still" word, the decision has not been made yet. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may not have the name of a person as its title, but it is clearly about a single person and events involving that person. Arguing that we can't apply the principle of BLP1E because the article doesn't meet your definition of biography is engaging in a level of formalism that is just unnecessary and unhelpful. Nathan T 22:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how BLP1E applies here – it unambiguously refers to biographies separate from articles on events. If one grants that Mr. Boothroyd is not notable outside this controversy, all BLP1E has to say about it is that there ought not to be a
David Boothroyd article.  Skomorokh  22:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I hadn't noticed that. It is written by the same journalist as The Independent's article, Jamie Welham, and substantially reprints the content of the latter work. It does go into more depth than The Independent, and if deemed reliable would go some way to providing a foundation for a standalone article if it weren't for the fact that there really isn't a lot of meat in it. As for reliability, the West End Extra is a local tabloid not indexed by Google News (which might be why it was not noticed here until now), and the article is written in an infotainment tone. If it's anything like its freesheet sister paper the
WP:BLP.  Skomorokh  22:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I feel you misrepresent the Camden New Journal and West End Extra. The CNJ is a long-established and respected local newspaper that has won awards. Similar papers are routinely used as reliable sources on other articles. The CNJ is used as a reliable source on other articles. I am uncomfortable about this selective application of what constitutes a reliable source. Bondegezou (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 6

  • Delete per Iridescent, Jennavecia, and others. No ... just no. Mr.Z-man 05:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. 76.208.69.190 (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, an awful lot of people are arguing, as I do, that this is a total non-event, utterly lacking in notability, and that this would be obvious if any site other than Wikipedia had been involved. It's just not that important folks! Groomtech (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad it's your last comment. While you find our arguments, citing BLP based on the fact that the sources used have been deemed wholly unreliable and riddled with inaccuracies, weak; I find that the keep arguments in this discussion are some of the most disgusting I've seen in a BLP-related AFD. We're not censoring criticism, we're not protecting one of our own. The sources are wrong. They don't accurately explain the workings of Wikipedia, and much less and more importantly, they don't accurately explain the Boothroyd controversy. If an accurate story had hit the media and spread like wild fire, as happened with the Essjay controversy, we'd not be having this debate. As it is, however, the situation is not being reliably reported, thus, as far as we should be concerned, it fails WP:V and thus WP:N. We have our own, 100% accurate internal references to write something in our own project space. If there is one reliable third-party source accurately presenting the information, as has been suggested above, then we have something to throw into one of our Wikipedia articles (history or whatever). But for a stand-alone article, we've got internal controversy being inaccurately reported on an otherwise non-notable living individual. The controversy is a hit to the projects already tarnished reputation. To keep such an article just further examples how this project is failing to uphold BLP standards at any level above pathetically.
vecia 18:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I realise that this comment applies to the one preceding mine, but thought it worth discussing anyway. It seems to be about declaring sources unreliable ("wrong") because we, or some of us, know. WP:V explicitly states that the criterion for inclusion is "not whether we think it is true". Although I agree with the conclusion, for other reasons, I think it important to understand why Wikipedia as a topic gets special treatment. Groomtech (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't, at least not beyond the fact that many editors don't understand how non-notable it is. (1) General interpretation of
WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Note that it says "to the subject", not "to Wikipedia". --Hans Adler (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above comment by Hans Adler is, perhaps, the best worded, most reasoned delete argument in this discussion. Very well explained and linked. Thank you.
vecia 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment (Keep) I'm just curious, can you tell me what is the bad idea (with ™ on it)? --98.154.26.247 (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Drama is not inherently a sign that something is a bad idea. We need to have discussions sometimes and they will be heated when many people have strong opinions. That's just the way things go. The important part there is that we strive to keep the conversation civil. Although there have been some minor lapses I think this hasn't gone that badly. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Hey, look! It's back! With 'calm' tags ;) So can weez plz haz it goez awaz 'ginz tomorrow? Cheerz, Jack Merridew 10:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still with us Steve? In terms of exits you're competing with Nelly M. ;) X MarX the Spot (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm still here :)
Help us mediate! 22:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Blacketer_controversy&oldid=1186954779"