Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:15, 17 March 2015

Kirby Delauter

Please consult Draft:Kirby Delauter as the article version subject to this AFD discussion.

Kirby Delauter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: To AFD "voters", please focus your attention on Draft:Kirby Delauter and express your vote to Keep, Delete, Redirect, etc., in terms of that version. There was an article in mainspace, but currently Kirby Delauter redirects to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government. A vote of "Keep" means to adopt the draft; "Redirect" means to keep the redirect in place (or to redirect to a different target); and "Delete" means to remove even the redirect in place now. --doncram 20:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This is where AFD discussion about Kirby Delauter is happening. Before this AFD was opened, there was an "informal" discussion about this topic at Informal Afd on Administrator's Noticeboard, which is still available (has not been archived) as of now. No further comments were posted there after editor Cunard's first posted here (in the first post after this page was started by NE Ent, and after Cunard suggested there that AFD should be done here. I'm boldly asserting this is indeed where AFD discussion is going on, and striking out suggestion to discuss there instead. Please do discuss here! --doncram 20:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see Informal Afd on Administrator's Noticeboard. It is requested all comments be made there. NE Ent 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Link to the draft article: Draft:Kirby Delauter.

Link to the DRV: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter.

Link to the WP:AN thread: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter.

This AfD should be closed on or after 24 March 2015 since it was not formally started until 17 March 2015.

Cunard (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Why this Misplaced Pages article does not harm Kirby Delauter. I reviewed the first ten pages of a Google search for "Kirby Delauter". Roughly 97 out of the 100 results were about Delauter's January 2015 incident. Only three of the results (all past the first five results) did not discuss the incident. Those three results were published by the subject himself (his Twitter page, his Facebook page, and his county biography).

  As Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs) wrote:

  when you search for Kirby Delauter you get as the first thing in the search which intentionally and unabashedly puts him in the stocks. No Misplaced Pages article does that.

  As NE Ent (talk · contribs) wrote:

  When Delauter gets googled, the choice is not whether his stupid comes up, but whether it comes up here, we were can at least attempt to provide a low drama, low snark description of the event, or some other site, which is likely to be less kind.

  I add that we can also put the event in context by providing a neutral, balanced overview of Kirby Delauter's life as a businessman and a politician.

  Cunard (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Here is what I wrote at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter about why WP:BLP1E is not applicable:

  The subject has received coverage in three aspects of his life: (1) as president of the construction company W.F. Delauter & Son, (2) as a member of Frederick Board of County Commissioners, and (3) as a member of the Frederick County Council.

  WP:BLP1E's first point says the policy applies "f reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Delauter has received significant coverage prior to this event; here is a small sample:

  1. "Setting boundaries in Frederick". The Baltimore Sun. 2012-05-14. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
  2. Greenfield, Sherry (2010-10-21). "Delauter says he will bid on county contracts if elected commissioner". The Gazette. Retrieved 2015-01-11. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)
  3. Marshall, Ryan (2012-05-23). "Delauter defends comment on moving business". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
  4. Greenfield, Sherry (2010-07-29). "Delauter wants to bring changes to county board". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
  5. Rodgers, Bethany (2014-12-26). "Political Notes: Delauter says he reimbursed county for inauguration". Frederick News-Post. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
  6. Gill, Thomas (2014-10-28). "It pays to be a county commissioner". Frederick News-Post. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.

  Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)#Politicians, says:

  Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

  The Baltimore Sun is a major newspaper, the largest circulation newspaper in the state of Maryland. It cannot be dismissed as being a "small, local newspaper". Prior to this incident, Delauter arguably passed Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)#Politicians. After this incident, he clearly does.

  I have created a draft article at Draft:Kirby Delauter to discuss the three aspects of his life. I included the incident in the "Frederick County Council" section because it happened while he was (and still is) a county council member.. Because the event takes up a small part of the article, I do not believe the draft violates Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects.

  Cunard (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• The subject is notable as a county official for having received significant biographical coverage from The Baltimore Sun, the largest newspaper in his state (link to the article). Most county officials do not receive significant coverage from the largest newspaper in their state. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• Request: Please put an AfD tag on Kirby Delauter. I cannot do so because it is fully protected. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Since "Kirby Delauter" is a redirect, the AfD notice would likely be better served by placing it on the draft IMO. — Ched :  ?  18:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

At Talk:Kirby Delauter I put an {{Admin help}} request for the AFD notice to be put on the redirect, and I put a facsimile AFD notice on the Draft:Kirby Delauter page (it can't be a regular AFD tag because that causes errors, for not being in mainspace). And at the wp:AN discussion (still unarchived), I put notice of this AFD also. So notice is out there. --doncram 22:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The opening comment I believe refers to WP:NOHARM, in which it also states: As for articles that do not conform to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. ...
• Therefore I must regretfully maintain my keep redirect and delete draft !vote per WP:BLP1E, WP:NPOL and IMO it fails WP:GNG. I do applaud Cunard for his research writing, and efforts; and I acknowledge that he was able to find information regarding W.F. Delauter & Son, and Delauter's personal life. Still - I just don't see it as being notable by our standards on wiki. Sorry. — Ched :  ?  18:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• I am not using WP:NOHARM as the basis for keeping the article. I am responding to this comment:

  I don't like to close as "keep salted", since there's interest among non-admins in reading it and taking stock of it first, per Diogenes above. Also I don't like to close it as "unsalt" (=recreate in some form), since that would mean the article was in mainspace for probably at least a week, and we're not in the business of shaming people for doing a stupid (not heinous, not illegal, but stupid) thing. As most of you know, the[REDACTED] bio is normally the first google hit on a person, and being a politician (albeit a low-profile one, without notability outside the one event), Kirby Delauter may well get googled. We're not and should not be the village stocks.

  There is no "shaming" here. Misplaced Pages is not being the "village stocks" here.

  Why do you believe that a subject who has received significant biographical coverage from The Baltimore Sun, the largest newspaper in his state (link to the article), prior to the January 2015 incident fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NPOL, and WP:GNG? The guidelines do not say what you think or want them to say.

  Cunard (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah .. ok, gotcha on the "noharm" thing. Well, I just don't see anything that makes him notable is all. At best, that ill-considered remark may have given him his 15 minutes of fame, but I don't see anything beyond that (BLP1E) which makes the article encyclopedic. Lots of people have their own business - but the guy who owns the local hardware store isn't going to get an article here. To me, no matter how much lipstick you put on it, in the end, it's still just the other white meat that goes great with eggs at breakfast. Sure, maybe the "Draft" isn't vandalized right now, but once it's in mainspace - I think it will be a magnet for it. I could find plenty of articles that use the term "Lewinsky" as a term for oral sex - but it would never stand up as an article. (although that Santorum one managed - but I digress). The bottom line for me is that he just doesn't pass muster on the notability end. Hey - if it gets kept - more power to you, but I can't support a "keep" vote in my own mind. Sorry. — Ched :  ?  20:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep (i.e. move the Draft version to replace the redirect now in mainspace). The draft seems well-sourced although a bit longer than an article about a local councilman deserves. Length and other faults, if any, in the draft can be addressed by editing. The subject is of note mostly because of his statement that he did not wish to be named by the local newspaper, but that's a pretty big story and it seems to be presented fairly in this draft, and there's other information about him too, so I don't see it as a one-event BLP violation. Seems okay to have this article, and it's a service to readers. I think it should be shorter, but kept in mainspace. --doncram 22:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: I looked into this issue just now, after the councilman has apologized for his comments/request. The closer of this AFD, and !voters here, may want to consider comments given in the wp:AN discussion and in the wp:DRV discussion linked from near the top here, but some/all of those might have been stated before the councilman apologized and/or without consideration of anything like the current draft article. --doncram 22:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete redirect, delete draft, and protect both per longstanding content policies such as WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP1E, and WP:BLP1E - not to mention WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP1E. Boy, that guy really put his foot in it one time, didn't he? That newspaper editorial was hilarious! However, Misplaced Pages has longstanding rules against "biographical" articles that only commemorate transient Internet mockery - for very good reasons. Mr. Delauter is notorious only for the one screwup that everyone knows about, and the list of incidental facts in the current draft doesn't change that. If the padding in the draft were posted with someone else's name as the title, it would end up deleted as a resume. Using it to pad this particular article doesn't save it from being a WP:BLP1E violation; only independent coverage of other things Mr/ Delauter would be notable for can do that.

Incidentally, I cannot help but observe that the very people who have kept this issue alive by objecting to a supposed "out-of-process" speedy deletion of the original article, a supposed "out-of-process" closure of a deletion review, and a supposed "out-of-process" closure of a discussion about the closure of the deletion review sought to avoid deletion of the reposted draft by pointing the deletion page to an out-of-process discussion under their control. Such actions can have no good effect, but only serve to turn the topic into a running sore. If this discussion fails to support recreation of an article - as I hope that it does - then that should be that, and the filibustering should end. If Mr. Delauter does something independently notable, then there will be a reason to reconsider, but not now. Let it end. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates