Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 2

2 June 2007

Tanya Kach

Tanya Kach was a kidnapping victim and now the article has been deleted in the recent spate of BLP paranoia (see Talk:Michael_J._Devlin#Bad_move for a response to a particularly stupid application recently). The incredibly tenuous interpretation of WP:NOT-Newspaper is definitely vague enough to not warrant a speedy. I'm absolutely not a fan of how Wikipedia carries News events, favouring subtrivial worthless nothings such as Essjay and Joshua Gardner just because they appeal to the techidiots. I've held this view for a long time, here's an edit I made around 15 months ago berating Wikipedia's current events.

Yet this case is way more notable and covered in the mainstream press, generating more relevant hits in Google News than either Essjay trivia and Joshua Gardner rubbish. Her case involves various reported twists an turns, her name is widely known in the public sphere. Although the best place for an article on this case may not be in the form of a biography, a biography could make a very efficient catalogue of all the information. Wikipedia is for the reader first, it is an encyclopedia first. There is a chance that readers will come looking for encyclopedic information on this case, we can provide that, and this event being notable, we should provide that.

You can take a look at a snapshot of the speedied article at the Google cache, you may feel it isn't notable, you may feel it is, it could definitely have done with improvement. But what it isn't is an insta-delete with zero but one's input. When I joined Wikipedia and started voting at RFA, Adminship was no big deal, I just don't trust admins to delete anything they want under the new WP:NOT-Newspaper directive without community input. Restore the article, move it if you want, list at AFD if needs be, but speedy it ain't. - hahnchen 11:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the article (which, naturally, should remain deleted as an intrusion on the privacy of a minor child and doesn't warrant a tabloid response) might I comment to your "started voting at RFA". "Voting" doesn't happen on WP about articles per se, each 'pro' and 'con' is taken into account in the final decision but isn't an absolute 'vote'. --AlisonW 16:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That you actually think the word "vote" is relevant at all in this discussion shows an absolute failure to understand the point being made. Tanya Kach is not a minor. Every major news outlet is not "tabloid". Privacy of a now-public individual does not trump Wikipedia's core goal of being an encyclopedia. Are you one of those who feel that all victims names should be castigated from Wikipedia because of some holier-than-media BLP paranoia? Should Shawn Hornbeck be a redlink instead of a redirect? We're here for the readers, not as some kind of futile information barrier. I've linked this discussion in the DRV nomination - Talk:Michael_J._Devlin#Bad_move, I suggest you read it. Incidentally, RFA is a vote, it has always been a vote, calling it a "discussion" is just a get-out clause so Bureaucrats can be elastic in their own judgments when closing decisions. The fact that in reality its still largely a vote lead to the ridiculous RFC style RFA we saw. I happen to call spades, spades. - hahnchen 17:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Restore as EVENT rather than BIO and cleanup/redirect. After careful consideration of the merits, I believe that this definitely warrants inclusion. While WP:BLP considerations are important, I don't believe this warrants overly negative or defammatory information. I also don't believe that this is a case of WP:RECENTISM -- the story received significant media coverage, and it's highly likely (IMHO) that the story is significant enough that we'll have readers who are hunting encyclopedic content on this story. I have no objection to making this an article about the event, instead of a Biography of the victim, and redirecting Tanya Kach to the incident article. Come to think of it, would Tanya qualify under notability guidelines otherwise? Probably not. /Blaxthos 15:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Restore as event and not a bio. Not the average kidnapping story. The legal case was widely covered in multiple reliable and independent sources, satisfying WP:N. It is a very unusual event for someone to survive such a long captivity, and the case was widely reported. A simple Google search provides all the info anyone could want, so we would not be revealing otherwise secret or even hard-to-obtain info. She was individually non-notable before, during and after the ten year captivity. Since she is 25 years old, she is not a minor (nor could she be if placed in captivity as a tenager and kept there 10 years). Does she have to be the subject of a made-for-TV movie like Steven Stayner for the article to be kept? Edison 17:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Restore under whatever fig leaf. The analogous two-centuries old Kaspar Hauser case is still hauntingly notable. If this is an encyclopedia, it must document notable events, also when they are horrendous. The reason why these articles are so controversial is that they somehow force us to look into the abyss. It's unpleasant, but you learn something important. Wikipedia is about learning, not about closing your eyes. Stammer 19:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment by deleting admin This article was not a biography by any stretch of the imagination, and should not be restored as such. As for an article about the event, is there anything to say about it that goes beyond a bare recounting the facts of the crime? Are there reliable sources for the impact of this story on society or law? If not, the encyclopedia of true crime stories is thataway. -- Donald Albury 19:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no evidence this news story has lasting cultural or historical significance (this is not the Lindbergh case). Donald suggests one venue, WikiNews is another, but it is still an old news story not an encyclopaedia article. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Guy--Doc^g 20:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - We're now tightening up notability requirements to need more than just multiple reliable sources and to actually have changed society and the law? In that case, why the hell do we have articles on video games, bands and god forsaken webcomics. And why is this being run as a Blind AFD? We no longer trust the users to be able to comment on biographical AFDs in case they incur the insular world of admins? Given that there are various concerns raised by different users above, I'd say that it pretty much isn't a speedy. - hahnchen 20:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not tightening up notability requirements, personally I think notability requirements suck and I now err to include if it is verifiable, but we have long recognised that BLPs are in a special category.--Doc^g 20:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Mimi Imfurst

Mimi Imfurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was suggested for deletion by others who dont have any knowlege on the professional drag queen industry. The longstanding staples of nightlife- contribute to the cultural diversity of New York City. Is notability relative?

The page is still there. There is no deletion to review. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true. The article has been recreated and tagged for speedy deletion because it has already gone through AfD. The author of the new version keeps asserting notability with no evidence and is arguing against speedy deletion, thus I suggested he come here. Corvus cornix 07:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• If assessing this article requires specialist knowledge of the professional drag queen industry, that is an indication that there are insufficient independent sources from which we can draw an article. An article worked up in userspace with sources might elp, but looking at it, I don't think it will help much, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)