Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) at 02:54, 16 October 2006 (→[]: - strong delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:54, 16 October 2006 by Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) (→[]: - strong delete)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Lori Klausutis

First Deletion Reason: Pursuant to WP:BLP regarding Non-Public Figures: “Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.” Subject of the article is non-notable, except for a flurry of speculation in 2001 regarding Joe Scarborough’s involvement in her death, and mention in a local Florida newspaper, and that time has long passed. Article seems to be created for the sole purpose of disparaging Joe Scarborough. I don’t care for Scarborough, but having this article gives undue weight to a story which has been thoroughly discredited, and as such violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight -- there is no investigation of Scarborough, and the Coroner said Klausutis did not die under suspicious circumstances – its inclusion here is sensationalist and tabloidic, not encyclopedic. This article was deleted once before. Only 842 hits on google, most of which are blogs. If this information is notable at all, put it in the Scarborough article, and leave sensationalism to The National Enquirer. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground Morton devonshire 18:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

History Okay, to clarify on the deletion history of the article, it was nominated for deletion twice in the past for different reasons than it is being nominated for this time. The first time, the result was delete, because it was a useless and possibly POV redirect to Joe Scarborough. The second time, the main reason was lack of notability, and the result of the debate was no consensus. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC), 00:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Reply: Absolutely, which is why this one is not eligible. Give me a break, it may be misguided, but it's not an attack page. Further, I find the nom's arguments to be wholly unpersuasive and irritating in tone; nom seems to view AFD as a POV battleground and routinely spams to friendlies on votes. This one, for example, was pre-discussed among a little group of early voters. That last said, and I've been wanting to comment on this longstanding abuse of the AFD process for a long time, this person has no notability beyond Scarborough. So, there ought to be about 3 lines in his article mentioning the hubbub. Derex 18:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There was a pre-meeting on the AfD? And I missed it? Rats. That means my sockpuppets Rex/Merecat/Morton/172/TDC/MONGO/Tom/Aaron missed it too. <that was a joke for the humor impaired folks> --Tbeatty 03:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nom, merge relevant material into other articles. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with this nomination. We have to be careful of what is presented in this encyclopedia. This project has already been slammed by Kim Komando per this statement. We need to protect ourselves with presenting only proper articles. Therefore, delete. JungleCat talk/contrib 19:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Expunge i vote delete per all above !paradigm! 19:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)!paradigm!
  • Delete She is only notable because her death was used by unscrupulous mud-slingers as fodder for scurrilous aspersions. Fred Bauder 19:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete G10, protect from recreation - Article appears to attack as many as three living persons. The last source in the article links to a probable copyright violating copy of a newspaper article, hosted on POAC, which is a left-wing blog that has an entire attack sectionon this subject. - Crockspot 20:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite any violating data. Widespread media citations warrant inclusion. · XP · 21:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable with 862 Google hits and numerous newspaper articles. The story also had a bearing on Katherine Harris's present senate race, per the article. A healthy woman in her 20's, working in a congressman's office, was found dead from a whack on the head, and the medical examiner decided she fainted from an undiagnosed heart problem (she was a runner) and fell and hit her head on the desk? The Florida papers raised serious questions about the lack of openness in failure to release the records of the investigation, and about the medical examiner's past. Keep this along with the Chandra Levy article. Many of the Delete votes have the apparent subtext that nothing casting doubt on right-wing media figures is allowed in Misplaced Pages, a policy I have not been able to find in the rulebook. Edison 21:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The fact that the article has led you to believe that it "casts doubt" on a right-wing figure is exactly why it should be deleted. There is no fact that should have led you to that conclusion but the intention of the article is to do that and is exactly why it should be deleted. --Tbeatty 04:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well said. It seems like editors have regularly manipulated the wording of this article to make it sound like there is room for doubt. (Note: I'm on the left wing and don't much care for Scarborough) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-10-15 17:13Z
  • Speedy Delete Speedy Delete (but with no prejudice towards recreation if supported by the dispute resolution process in the Joe Scarborough article) per WP:BLP. Also note that the husband of the subject of this article requested it's deletion. See Talk:Lori_Klausutis#Why_write_this_article, diff — Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC), 01:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Edison and XP. The article is also well referenced. Mujinga 23:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Again with the apparently bad faith AfD's. A simple review of what was claimed to be the first deletion nomination of the article wasn't an AfD, but an RfD. If you're going to propose AfD's, let's try to get the history correct. Not voting yet, but what is Chandra Levy's claim to fame if not for Gary Condit? *Sparkhead 23:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    It's not bad faith. It's an easy mistake to make if you don't actually read the discussion, which would be quite likely if you just read the note on Essjay's talk page. Besides, the redirect deletion does mention the Joe Scarborough controversy: if anything, actually having it in the article, instead of just redirecting to Joe Scarborough, is worse. Also, it was technically an AfD that should have been an RfD, but was deleted anyways. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I read the discussion. An article didn't exist at the time of the delete. Since the item in the Aug05 AfD was a redirect, handled as an RfD in an AfD discussion, this article was never deleted. It was an AfD that resulted in a deletion of a redirect. A little intellectual honesty would be appreciated. *Sparkhead 00:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There's not much point in posting to Essjay's talk page about anything; he hasn't made a single edit anywhere on Misplaced Pages in two months. --Aaron 01:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    I meant that Morton devonshire might not have read the discussion. In any case, although "recreation of a deleted article" is not a good justification for deletion here, the *fD still has historical interest, especially considering it does mention the Joe Scarborough controversy. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see a lot of merit in this article, but I would like to keep the history accurate. This may be the third nomination, but is only the second time the article itself is being considered for deletion, and it was never deleted. Just a nuance, but it is more accurate. Catch me on my talk page if you want to discuss it a bit more, no use cluttering this up. *Sparkhead 00:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is no logical comparison between this article and Chandra Levy. Gary Condit was having an affair with Levy, and lied about it during much of the search for her. There is zero evidence that Scarborough and Klausutis had anything other than a standard employer-employee relationship, and he has an iron-clad alibi that proves he was uninvolved in her death. --Aaron 00:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There's plenty of logical comparison. A young woman worker of a congressman died with no known witnesses present. How often does that happen? Also note the very recent Miami Herald mention of the incident with respect to Katherine Harris, which is not a small town paper. *Sparkhead 01:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No one knows how many times it happens because no one cares. It's not notable. But people die in the workplace for natural causes all the time. That's all that happened here. And the smear is trying to compare someone who was murdered and that's having an affair with a congressman vs. someone who is unknown to a congressman that dies of natural causes. 'Female' and 'dead' is about the only comparison but the innuendo is something more and is a violation of BLP.--Tbeatty 03:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You can generalize to "any workplace" but when something happens related to a Congressman, whether it's tax evasion or death of a worker, it is more notable than it happening to Joe Public. *Sparkhead 12:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The BLP is joe scarborough and the problem is false light defamation. You have already stated that you believe that this article reflects negatively on scarborough and that is prima facie evidence of "false light" as there is no reason Klausutis' death should reflect anything on Scarborough. --Tbeatty 22:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Joe Scarborough. This has been used as a smear against him often enough that a source of verifiable information on it would be valuable. -Hit bull, win steak 14:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge This is only notable as inasmuch as it applies to Scarborough. Let's make it a section in his article - the article itself is not that long and it's well-done, so it should be an easy no-brainer merge. --Gwern (contribs) 17:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge. This article exists only to throw up piles of FUD. It's one of the worst examples of tabloid gossip. Having a lot of sources and Google hits is not what is being argued here; it's the quality/purpose of the content that is in question. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-10-15 17:13Z
  • Keep and de-POV - The whole affair is indeed FUD, but the FUD itself has become notable. There should be a separate article to keep this stuff out of the Joe Scarborough article. --Bletch 22:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The only issue at question here is notability. WP:BLP#Non-public_figures does not apply. The Moore actions, Scarborough talking about it on Imus, the Vanity Fair article and subsequent apology, and the fact that Katherine Harris recently mentioned it to potential campaign donors which warranted coverage in the Miami Herald all support notability. As long as the page sticks to facts and makes clear that Scarborough was not found to be guilty of anything involving the death, which it does seem to do at the moment, it should be kept. *Sparkhead 22:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and remove POV and unsourced stuff. Unfortunately the fact that her death has been politicized means that we should have an article, but only one that states the official conclusion and the controversy. The detail on the coroner seems unnecessary and an attempt to tie two unrelated facts to a certain conclusion, which is not our job here. --plange 23:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are some issues with the content, but that can be edited and fixed. The article's topic itself is perfectly notable and valid. By the same rationale given, Lee Harvey Oswald could also be deleted, since he did nothing notable in his life prior to the "flurry of speculation" in 1963 surrounding his shooting of JFK and his own subsequent death. wikipediatrix 00:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. The arguments presented so far in favor of keeping this article are not remotely persuasive. The argument just prior to my vote was the argument which prompted me to actually vote, something that I very seldom do, because it is such a non sequitur. Lee Harvey Oswald has been the subject of hundreds of hours of television, dozens of books, thousands of articles. To try to use that as a comparison with the current case is... well, let's just say not persuasive to be kind.--Jimbo Wales 02:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Categories: