| Revision as of 10:12, 30 January 2022 editMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Added missing end tags to discussion close footer to reduce Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:18, 5 November 2024 edit undoJonesey95 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Template editors373,951 editsm Fix Linter errors. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | ||
| The result was '''delete'''. I've read this entire discussion, as well as the article's talk page and comments about it at ], and while there has been quite a bit to sift through, consensus seems clear to me. It has long been accepted that BLP, especially BLP1E, overrides GNG, which may have been technically met here. By numbers, a vast majority of participating users have voted in favor of deletion and/or redirecting. By reasoning—the more important metric—that same side of the debate also seems to prevail, essentially arguing that while the subject of the article has been discussed within extensive journalism, the entire body of coverage is of a transient nature. In its current state, the article is an indiscriminate collection of negative events (non-events, in most cases) in this person's life which have been dug up by the media. The sentences are heavily sourced, but hardly well-sourced.<p>Combine marginal notability of the subject with content issues relating to potential libel and disproportionately negative text, and the outcome of this discussion presents itself quite clearly. It's worth noting that I am forced to almost completely discount one comment in favor of keeping the page, because it discusses the nominator instead of the article. More broadly, comments strictly relating to the ''subject's'' motives have had no bearing on my decision here. It's also important to acknowledge the fact that at least three editors changed their opinions during the course of the discussion, and appear to all support deletion as of this timestamp. I foresee some controversy following this decision, but having weighed my options here, I don't see how this could have been closed any other way. Note that this does not rule out potential recreation ''as a redirect''. – ''']''' | ] 04:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC) | The result was '''delete'''. I've read this entire discussion, as well as the article's talk page and comments about it at ], and while there has been quite a bit to sift through, consensus seems clear to me. It has long been accepted that BLP, especially BLP1E, overrides GNG, which may have been technically met here. By numbers, a vast majority of participating users have voted in favor of deletion and/or redirecting. By reasoning—the more important metric—that same side of the debate also seems to prevail, essentially arguing that while the subject of the article has been discussed within extensive journalism, the entire body of coverage is of a transient nature. In its current state, the article is an indiscriminate collection of negative events (non-events, in most cases) in this person's life which have been dug up by the media. The sentences are heavily sourced, but hardly well-sourced.<p>Combine marginal notability of the subject with content issues relating to potential libel and disproportionately negative text, and the outcome of this discussion presents itself quite clearly. It's worth noting that I am forced to almost completely discount one comment in favor of keeping the page, because it discusses the nominator instead of the article. More broadly, comments strictly relating to the ''subject's'' motives have had no bearing on my decision here. It's also important to acknowledge the fact that at least three editors changed their opinions during the course of the discussion, and appear to all support deletion as of this timestamp. I foresee some controversy following this decision, but having weighed my options here, I don't see how this could have been closed any other way. Note that this does not rule out potential recreation ''as a redirect''. – ''']''' | ] 04:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)</p> | ||
| <p>'''Note for future passers-by:''' the article is bluelinked because it has been recreated as a redirect. – ''']''' | ] 16:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC) | <p>'''Note for future passers-by:''' the article is bluelinked because it has been recreated as a redirect. – ''']''' | ] 16:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)</p> | ||
| <p>], Reich's former name, is also redirected to the JonBenet page. ] (]) 19:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC) | <p>], Reich's former name, is also redirected to the JonBenet page. ] (]) 19:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)</p> | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| <div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Reich}}</ul></div> | <div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Reich}}</ul></div> | ||
Latest revision as of 00:18, 5 November 2024
- 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.
Combine marginal notability of the subject with content issues relating to potential libel and disproportionately negative text, and the outcome of this discussion presents itself quite clearly. It's worth noting that I am forced to almost completely discount one comment in favor of keeping the page, because it discusses the nominator instead of the article. More broadly, comments strictly relating to the subject's motives have had no bearing on my decision here. It's also important to acknowledge the fact that at least three editors changed their opinions during the course of the discussion, and appear to all support deletion as of this timestamp. I foresee some controversy following this decision, but having weighed my options here, I don't see how this could have been closed any other way. Note that this does not rule out potential recreation as a redirect. – Juliancolton | 04:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Note for future passers-by: the article is bluelinked because it has been recreated as a redirect. – Juliancolton | 16:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
John Mark Karr, Reich's former name, is also redirected to the JonBenet page. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Alexis Reich
AfDs for this article:- Alexis Reich (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)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
 | This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
- 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.