The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Notability; this page userified over the summer to improve it; now ready for review and reposting, if approved. For citations meeting notability, see the first seven (7) footnotes. Original instruction following userify was to have the administrator review; he has disengaged and requested it be sent to DRV. Cmagha ( talk) 16:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• If you have trouble bringing up the link, go to my user page. Both the article and the discussion can be found there. -- Cmagha ( talk) 17:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I've fixed the link for you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• allow recreation Excellent work. Yes, ready for main space. (I thought the original article was acceptable, though in need of considerable rewriting. But now I don't think there's any doubt about it. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• allow recreation- looks like this one was was knocked out of the park. There is absolutely no question about any notability here, and I can't see any possible reason this would even need to go to AFD. Well done. Umbralcorax ( talk) 21:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment. This user has a repeated history of misrepresenting sources/original research in relation to this topic. I don't have time at the moment to comb through the re-written article, but I strongly suggest that the editors involved in this discussion take caution in re-evaluating the article. In past instances, some of the sources listed as refs didn't even mention the Irving Society or it was unclear which of the many societies by that name were being referred to. He has also taken several sources out of context. Before re-instatement, a thorough fact checking of the article is needed in my opinion due to the history surrounding this article. 4meter4 ( talk) 23:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• allow recreation. See the first seven footnotes, where the notability cites were frontload for Spartaz' review last summer. And I think the detractors from earlier this year need to back down from expressions of bad faith about specific editors on this project. It is really getting unfair.-- Coldplay3332 ( talk) 00:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• allow recreation. If you look at fns. 2 & 3, both are non-Cornell secondary sources (one is a federal report) and they both cite directly to the Irving. Notability achieved. Wehatweet ( talk) 13:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)— Wehatweet ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• allow recreation. I also checked fn. 1., and the Sanderson quote refers to the first literary societies at Cornell, of which the Irving was one of two at the time. So that checks out. The Ithacan cite is dead on; direct reference, so that checks; same with the Cornell Register. Also the University of Michigan’s University Chronicle is a direct cite to the Irving. So in fn 1, there are three cites to secondary sources not connected to Cornell which reference this subject. I agree with Wehatweet; notability has been achieved. Tea36 ( talk) 02:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC) — Tea36 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• allow recreation. The Syracuse Orangemen chiming in (with Coldplay32): I think fns. 2 & 3 make the best case for notability; particularly the federal report cited. Also, see in fn. 5 the greater use of the indicators we use in legal writing, such as "Cf." and "see"; these help limit the citations for the purposes above in the text. That may help the detractors. I see that Spartaz' has noted that he "hates markup" in the tiny history line notation -- should that be moved to the main discussion? Is it code for someone else in a discussion we are not privy to? Lebowski 666 ( talk) 18:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Yes it means that I am a frustrated cereal killer. Actually, it means that wikipedia is notorious for confusing mark-up text and command lines for templates and the like. For example, I had 5 goes (including previews) and had to spend 10 minutes this evening reading documentation on a non-standard info box just to understand how to insert an image into an article. I frequently get mark-up wrong hence my tendency to do the correcting edit with a comment about how I feel about the stuff. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Procedural question: How many edits to how many different articles is required before editors are no longer tagged as having made "few or no other edits" outside the topic area? I note Lebowski 666 has over 50 edits to more than half a dozen other articles, none of them particularly related to this subject, including a couple of image uploads. I gotta say, his contributions are more diverse than mine were at the same point in my wiki-editorship. Risker ( talk) 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Um, yes that was over eager, I have removed the tag with my apologies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The Great Lebowski caught the Wiki fever last summer; he’s done quite bit. Not as much as I have, but I have heard him tapping away at lunch in the cubicle next door more than once! Coldplay3332 ( talk) 00:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• allow recreation. On the critique page, I provided these comparators and a summary of the research. Brought forward for review, but do read all the commentary. In order of less, to more, evidence: Sphinx (senior society) (Notability based incredibly on primary, Dartmouth sources), Philolexian Society (like the Sphinx at Dartmouth, all are Dartmouth sources), Episkopon (nice, notability determined by three primary sources, one of which is somebody's resume), American Whig-Cliosophic Society (notability accepted from one secondary source which is a simple, unlabeled list), Elizabethan Club (notability determined by one secondary source dating from 1921, and not linked; everything else is a Yale publication), Franklin Society (Notability based merely on two secondary, Non-Brown University sources), - - Irving's evidence quality/quantity falls here. - - Philodemic Society (notability established from two secondary sources), Jefferson Literary and Debating Society (notability apparent from two secondary sources, which are exactly the same as the Washington's at UVA), Washington Literary Society and Debating Union (notability apparent from two secondary sources), Philomathean Society (notability well deserved from four secondary and one primary source),.

Total of nineteen (19) citations supporting notability, more than any comparator linked, supra.

Best Evidence, eight (8) Secondary Sources specifically citing the Irving.

• United States Bureau of Education, Contributions to American Educational History No. 28: History of Higher Education in New York, Circular of Information No. 3, (H.B. Adams, ed. 1900) at 393.</ref> (Non-Cornell secondary source describing the Irving specifically as “a purely literary society,” cite meeting the need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.); see also p. 74;

• John H. Selkreg, Landmarks of Tompkins County (1894) at X.;

• Thomas Spencer Harding, College literary societies: their contribution to higher education in the United States, 1815–1876 (171) at 265; (Non-Cornell secondary source, albeit relatively minor, which nonetheless adds support for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.);

• Catalogue of the Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity (Aldrice C. Warren, ed. 1910) at 1001 (Non-Cornell secondary source noting the importance of membership in the Irving);

• The Shield (16:1)(Theta Delta Chi March 1900) at 210;

• Fayette E. Moyer, "Literary Societies," Cornell Magazine (January 1895) at 187–194. (Although a Cornell source, this citation notes that the Irving also admitted women to membership, but the Philaletheian, believing that there ought to be one society which devoted itself purely to debate, remained an organization for men only, thereby meeting the need for reliability, good sourcing but not complete independence of the subject. Accordingly, we balanced it with other citations.). See also Carol Kammen, Cornell: glorious to view (2003) at 39. (non-Cornell source supporting the same);

• Sari Knopp Biklen & Marylin B. Brannigan, Women and Educational Leadership (1980) at 128 (non-Cornell secondary source noting that by 1884 and 1886, the Irving was feeling pressed by Cornell Athletics. Cite meets need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject. Tracking down hardcopy, as we are experiencing difficulties in linking to page in text.);

• Charlotte Williams Conable, Women at Cornell: The Myth of Equal Education (1977)(Although written by a Cornellian, this source notes that the Irving Literary Society, along with the Christian Association, was one of the few campus venues in which Cornell member could participate as equals with Cornell men. The early membership criteria are an example of the cyclical, rather than evolutionary, nature of gender inclusion noted by feminist theorists. As such, it supports reliability, good sourcing but not complete independence of the subject. Accordingly, we balanced it with other citations. Tracking down hardcopy, as we are experiencing difficulties in linking to page in text.).

Strong Evidence, seven (7) Primary Sources directly identifying the Irving:

• University Chronicle, “Educational” (Univ. Mich.)(Jan. 16, 1869) at 2. (identifying the Irving as one of Cornell’s two literary societies. Cite meets the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.);

• "Irving Literary Society," The Ithacan (Apr. 4, 1869) at 2; (Non-Cornell source editorial stating that the Irving was "first in the field");

• The Daily Journal (Ithaca, New York)(Nov. 8, 1870) at 2 (Non-Cornell primary source noting transaction of the Irving Literary Society’s business.);

• “Exchanges,” The Virginia University Magazine (12:2)(Nov. 1873) at 266 (non-Cornell primary source noting that the Irving was entertaining an agenda which strayed from traditional literary activities. Cite meets the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.);

• Daily Democrat 2 (Ithaca, New York)(Sept. 27, 1884)(Non-Cornell primary source stating “The Irving literary society met last evening, but was poorly attended. This institution should be one of the most prosperous student societies in the college, but strange to say, it has deteriorated in point of numbers, and its management has fallen into the hands of technical instead of literary students.” Cite meets the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.);

• The Daily Democrat (Ithaca, N.Y.)(Oct. 31, 1884) at 2.

• James Gardner Sanderson, "The Personal Equation," Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine (67:397)(January 1901) at 86. (referring to that the Irving and Philaletheaian as “the two literary societies [that] were everything . . .” during the early years, cite meeting the need for reliability, good sourcing but not complete independence of the subject. Accordingly, we balanced it with other citations; the article is a memoir by a Cornellian);

Good Evidence, four (4) Secondary or Primary Sources which may not directly identify the Irving, but refer to literary societies at Cornell in a manner, which when combined with another source, prove notability of the subject:

• Blake Gumprecht, The American Collegetown (2008) at 77 (Non-Cornell general secondary source citation on student culture at Cornell, noting that the Irving and its peers established an environment conducive to free intellectual thought in the early years, cite meeting the need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject. Combined with Cornell University, The Register (3d.)(1874-75) at 77 (showing Irving as one of two senior literary societies) to complete citation inclusive of the Irving.);

• “Cornell University,” The People’s Cyclopedia of Universal Knowledge (W.H. DePuy ed. 1897) at 687 (Non-Cornell, secondary sources, referencing literary societies in general. Combined with Cornell University, The Register (1879-1880) at 5 to complete citation inclusive of the Irving.);

• Gerald Graff, Professing Literature: An Institutional History (Univ. Chicago 1987), at 45–51 (Non-Cornell, albeit general, secondary source referencing Cornell on the role literary societies, cite meeting the need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.) combined with David Fellows More, The Historical Journal of the More Family (John More Association 1913) and Transactions of the New York State Agricultural Society 65 (1869) to confirm the general Gerald Graff cite refers, in part, to the Irving);

• Transactions of the New York State Agricultural Society 65 (1869)(Non-Cornell primary source identifying Cornell’s literary societies as electing men of talent and work, cite meeting the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject. But it is a primary source, not secondary. Though cited to round out the Graff citation, it also stands on its own as proof of notability).

Cmagha ( talk) 13:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Cleanwell ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Courtesy request for page creator, who is convinced that mention of uniqueness of a company's product is enough of a claim of said company's notability to escape CSD A7 deletion, and refuses to believe otherwise. ( Long discussion on my page)) Kimchi.sg ( talk) 03:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply

RESPONSE:

Having reviewed the a7 criterion for speedy deletion, I believe that this article was not properly deleted. A7 is used to specify articles which do not indicate why its subject is important or significant. However, this deletion review itself is not about the A7 criterion, but more specifically about the reason that it was deleted.

Fortunately we have the talk discussion logs in which the deleting admin states his argument that the article did contain a claim of significance but that the claim was not credible: "This claim taken by itself does not appear credible. Kimchi.sg (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)".
So, this deletion review has been created not to investigate the entirety of this article; instead, it must solely provide evidence which supports the credibility of the claim.

The claim as indicated by both parties is: "Cleanwell represents a significant shift in the hand sanitzer product space because of its uniquely non-toxic, chemical free ingredients." Parsing this down, we see that this is a complex claim which can be simplified:

Premises:
1. Cleanwell is uniquely non-toxic.
2. Cleanwell has chemical free ingredients.

Conclusion:
Cleanwell represents a significant shift in this market.

Let us begin by examining the first premise. The wikipedia page on hand sanitizer specifically addresses non-alcohol based sanitizers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_sanitizer#Non-alcohol_Hand_Sanitizers "benzalkonium chloride is rated as a level 7 high hazard in the Cosmetics Safety Database" "Triclosan is rated as a level 7 high hazard in the Cosmetics Safety Database" "Alcohol-free hand sanitizers may be effective immediately while on the skin, but the solutions themselves can become contaminated because alcohol is an in-solution preservative and without it, the alcohol-free solution itself is succeptible to contamination" Cleanwell however contains none of the above mentioned substances and is also alcohol free.[1] Further, herein lies a strong argument for notability and inclusion. This formulation represents a gap in the knowledge stored within wikipedia and on this basis is notable. Premise 2 is substantiated by US Patents.[1]

As we have validated the premises, there remains no doubt that the admin's claims of non-credibility are false. We have substantiated the claims.

There does however remain the original question of notability, which to avoid a subsequent review shall now be addressed.

Ideo is a global design and innovation firm which has repeatedly won more awards than any other design firm in the world: "IDEO brought Ingenium, the key ingredient and first all-natural antimicrobial that meets FDA and EPA standards for germ killing efficacy, to market in the form of the CleanWell product line."[2] It is difficult to argue that the world's first all-natural antimicrobial that meets both FDA and EPA standards is not notable.

Sources:

• [1]US Patents 7,465,697 b1 and 7,763,575 b2
• [2] http://www.ideo.com/work/featured/cleanwell (see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDEO)

• Corporate Social Responsibility Newswire
• [Applying the precautionary principle to consumer household cleaning product development, Journal of Cleaner Production, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available

• Sanitizer Myths maincampus.com

• FDA approves manufacturing facilities

• Overturn. The page creator has provided sufficient evidence that this article did, in fact, make a 'credible claim to importance/significance' such that an A7 Speedy was not appropriate. An AfD might well succeed, but giving the chance for community discussion seems only right. -- Korruski ( talk) 08:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• • • Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. DGG ( talk ) 13:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and restore Certainly enough is in the article to prevent a speedy deletion. There are good sources which I think show actual notability , including substantial coverage in a NYT article [1] -- and a number of other news sources, all available in G NewsArchive--the creator of the article should add them. Curious that the author does not seem to have thought of looking, but the company's publicity dept. needs some assistance--the links to the positive press is not even on the company web site. I admit that in reviewing speedies I do not always look for references not in the article if the speedy seems really obvious--but I certainly would have looked when the user complained to me--and certainly if I were going to argue, as he did, that the claims were not credible, I'm glad the user persisted, despite the negative and even contemptuous comments made to him on the talk p, including, finally "Im done with someone who refuses to believe everything I tell him" --an unfortunate phrase to pick when what was told him was clearly wrong as shown by good sources. DGG ( talk ) 14:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Agreed. The way Tlow03 was dealt with struck me as rather unfortunate, as he was doing an excellent job of making his case. -- Korruski ( talk) 14:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply

"he was doing an excellent job of making his case." - And in retrospect I was doing an excellently bad job of handling it. Kimchi.sg ( talk) 02:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Maybe I'm just a hardline believer in science and rationality, but I think claims like "chemical-free ingredients" make it impossible to treat the article claims as credible. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 16:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree it needs rewriting, and I'll take responsibility for seeing it done or for doing it myself. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree with DGG that it will need continued work. I will offer to contribute to the process of improvement. Also I agree with Hullaballoo that "chemical free" is not the correct term to use, and should be revised. Tlow03 ( talk) 19:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn per above and send to WP:AFD, where it will almost certainly be deleted. What a waste of everybody's time, but if someone fights hard enough you have to let them waste some of your time, I guess. Herostratus ( talk) 05:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn page creator made their case. -- œ ^™ 08:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Article is not notable or an appropriate entry for an encyclopedia. See detailed discussion on the article talk page. Austex • Talk 03:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse keep until another AfD achieves consensus - I believe that the AfD discussion suggested that the article does have a legitimate claim to notability, and there was no consensus against this. No particular reason why this article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia has been given and, again, there was no consensus that the article was unencyclopedic. Therefore, I don't see any reason not to keep the article until another AfD achieves consensus to delete. I understand Austex's main complaints centred around the undue emphasis the article gave to him personally, which was unfair and potentially damaging. I thought that this issue was rectified during the delete discussion, by not using Austex's name in the article. -- Korruski ( talk) 08:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, thank you and other editors re the deletion of my name. It is most appreciated, and it mitgate my own personal conern. My concern now is with the article to begin with. Austex • Talk 17:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure, but relist to build consensus: I see no reason why it should not have been closed as no consensus; there doesn't seem to be any consensus one way or another, and closing it as no consensus was perfectly valid. It may be helpful to relist this to attempt to gain consensus to either keep it or delete it though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as an accurate reading of the AFD discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 16:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion With no relist. As per discussion and reasons cited. This simply is not an encyclopedia article and it was created for a specific purpose on Wilikepia (a BLP issue) that is now gone and deleted. No other Wikipedia page references this article and it is cited by the WikipediaLawProject as being of low importaqnce. It would be helpful for the creator to explain why this is notable and worthy of an encyclopdiac listing. However, if kept is anyone willing to consider the additions I have cited on the article talk page to make it more accurate, complete and well-rounded? Austex • Talk 17:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes. I will consider them. Austex, I appreciate that this article is important to you, but I don't feel that this is the place to make your case for deletion. If you feel that the decision to close as 'no consensus' did not reflect the discussion (in other words, you believe there was a consensus to delete) then say so. Otherwise, you are free to relist the article for deletion, and make your case there. Alternatively, I will be happy to help you with improving the article. -- Korruski ( talk) 17:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Would you recommend that I or someone else instigate a new AfD? I do recognize that I have a considerable interest, and also a considerable CIO on this topic, about which I have no doubt more than stretched the boundaries. I don't want to abuse the system. Austex • Talk 21:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment At the AfD I suggested deletion or total rewriting, and I still think it is needed. The actual non-local notability, the fairly wide citation of the case, is entirely due not to the principal issue or the merits, but only to the successful appeal on the procedural point of just what sort of information the judge may decide himself without sending to the jury. The article rather obscures this, & I had to read the actual decisions to figure out what was going on. The original dispute does have to be discussed to give some context, but I would suggest in rewriting that it might perhaps be relegated to a sentence or two of background. Unfortunately we have no way of solving this sort of problem , & I continue to think that if the undue emphasis is not fixed the article should be deleted, DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Just to remind everyone that this discussion is about whether or not the closure of this AfD as no consensus was appropriate and a correct interpretation of consensus on the AfD, not about whether you feel that it should be kept or deleted (that's what the AfD itself was for). All this "endorse keep" and "endorse delete" business is strange, as the closure was neither for keep nor delete. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment A good point, Giftiger. Would you favor relisting it again as an AfD? If so, someone other than me probably should list it, although I would be happy to do so. I'd personally prefer that 'Korrisku' or 'DGG' initiate a new AfD and I will withdraw this appeal. Austex • Talk 16:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Agree with assessment of close of AFD by Pax:Vobiscum ( talk · contribs), which as an appropriate decision and a good determination for the outcome. -- Cirt ( talk) 08:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Cancel Appeal Seems to me that we ought to accept the original decision by Pax:Vobiscum and let it stand, and then re-list is as an AfD for more discussion. Austex • Talk 15:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Wikinews has related news:

• US undergraduate commits suicide after 'outing' via webcast

Tyler Clementi ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

It was speedied as BLP1E, but the dude is dead, so BLP cannot be invoked. It is already the second day of coverage on front page of New York Times, so 1E cannot be invoked. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion: The fact that the one event was reported in the news for two consecutive days does not mean it's no longer a single event; per WP:1E the individual is not notable, and per WP:NOTNEWS, the event isn't suitable for encyclopaedic coverage either. It doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria, but it uncontroversially fails WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS so an IAR delete was reasonable in this case. If there is significant opposition to the IAR deletion then by all means restore it and take it to AfD, but it's unlikely to stand a snowball's chance in hell of surviving AfD per the policies above. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Except the coverage today is not a repeat of yesterday, it is the front page of the New York Times as commentary: Online Musings Point to Student’s State of Mind Before a Suicide. And is on the Op-Ed page of several New Jersey papers in print. The guide you pointed to says: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This doesn't fit any of those categories. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    • The coverage is a continuation of the same story. It was covered first on Gawker long before the NYTimes got its hands on it. Gawker covers all sorts of passing and relevant (but ultimately non-notable) news, and at this point this seems like another one of those articles. -- Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 03:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• <ec>The event is clearly notable and this isn't a passing news story given the massive coverage. The biography is less likely to make it, but not and open-and-shut case given the massive amount of coverage. Not a speedy, not a BLP, no reason to ignore process, and if the massive coverage continues will make it past WP:BIO1E just as Rodney King did. Overturn Hobit ( talk) 01:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • We get massive coverage on all sorts of stuff, but not all of it is notable. Rodney King is quite a jump - the events surrounding him triggered the 1992 Los Angeles riots. -- Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 04:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Do remember that WP:NOTNEWS refers to enduring notability, not notability or coverage immediately after the event. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at AfD. No applicable speedy criterion. No overriding reason not to debate according to standard process. Taking administrative shortcuts in the name of sensitivity is self-defeating. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment. We should try to avoid recentism getting to our heads. We have little to no information on whatever has happened - whatever article we write will consist solely of a few select quotes from the news articles, all of which state the same limited material. The story right now stands as such: kid is cyberbullied, commits suicide; two fellow students arrested. After that, then what? We have no information. We have no perspective. We don't even have all the facts yet. We don't know if this will be different from any of the other similar tales that make the news rounds. See WP:ONEVENT, WP:SENSATION, etc, etc. I think you are all jumping the gun. Why don't we wait for at least a week for all the furor to die down, and then we can think about starting something up? -- Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 04:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The same could be said of World War III when it starts, that we should wait to get perspective on it. I can also sum up WWII the same way you did: Hitler invaded Poland and then we dropped the bomb on Japan. Let a full AFD decide. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 04:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    • I would generally agree with you, but this is hardly Hitler invading Poland or a major diplomatic scandal. It isn't even the Afghan War Logs. It's a local piece of news that has gone viral nationally because of unfortunate implications. -- Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 08:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and rename to "death of..." per EVENT. No speedy criterion applies, listing at AfD is probably inevitable. Jclemens ( talk) 04:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• BLP applies to recently dead out of respect to their families. Neither of the two deleted articles are encyclopedic and dwell on the tabloid aspects of the case. Endorse. Note to closing admin that as this was deleted under BLP it may only be recreated or undeleted if a clear consensus to over-rule this exists. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Can you cite the exact guide you are referring to? I don't see anything like that at WP:BLP. You may also note that the death was covered in the New York Times which is a broadsheet newspaper. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 05:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    • See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Deceased Specifically But material about the deceased may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of the recently deceased, so anything questionable should be removed promptly In this case both articles as written were inevitably salacious and unpleasant for the surviving relatives and BLP therefore applies. 1E or ONEEVENT is pretty clear that this subject is only notable for one thing, so this article does not belong here and was rightfully deleted under BLP ground to avoid harm to surviving relatives. A consensus can permit creation of a new article but, I think, neither of the ones that were deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
      • That says "anything questionable should be removed promptly" in the article, it doesn't say to delete the article. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 07:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Removed promptly includes deletion if the whole article is a problem. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. In cases like this (an article on an ordinary person, recently deceased in tragic circumstances) we should start with the status quo of "delete" and then only create the article where there is consensus to do so (and consensus can be achieved here at DRV). That's the ethical thing to do, even if it isn't supported by current deletion process. The alternative is creating an improper article in the moments after the event, when the damage caused by the article is at its most acute, and accompanying that with a rancourous 7 day AfD. So I support the deletion of the article on those IAR grounds. As an article fails BLP1E and NOTNEWS by a very wide margin, I'm going, for the time being, to support the status quo and oppose any consensus to create an article on or in any way related to the subject.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 06:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The only problem is that he is dead so BLP1E does not apply. And NOTNEWS says: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This doesn't fit any of those categories. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 06:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    • The key words being "For example..." -- Mkativerata ( talk) 06:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
      • And it would help in any of those examples were remotely similar. "For example" doesn't mean everything or anything, I peeked at my thesaurus. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 07:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
        • They are providing examples of news events which may not have enduring notability; it is not a complete list or categorisation of articles which fail WP:NOTNEWS; the policy itself explains what should or should not be considered: if it doesn't have enduring notability, it should be at wikinews, not here. And so soon after the event, we don't know if it's going to have enduring notability or not because wikipedia is not a crystal ball. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Do no harm is clearly the guiding principle here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
      • How exactly would an article on his death cause harm? Our first objective is to write an encyclopedia. We don't have a crystal ball that can tell us that an article with bring joy to someone or despair. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 07:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Clearly you have no imagination if you cannot work that out for yourself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
          • It is hard to imagine how an encyclopedia article, using information from various news sources, could possibly cause more harm than those news sources themselves. -- Korruski ( talk) 08:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
            • Where did I say do more harm then the papers? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
              • My point is that I cannot understand how the article can do harm when it will not be including any information that is not already being covered by most major news sources in, at the very least, the US and UK. You suggest that to fail to see how it can do harm shows a lack of imagination. Well, fine, I admit that I cannot imagine how it can conceivable do harm, so please explain? -- Korruski ( talk) 08:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The event satisfies WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE based on coverage in several well-known news publications; I think it satisfies WP:GEOSCOPE by virtue of the fact that large numbers of the LGBT community outside the US have now heard about the incident; and WP:EFFECT seems like it's likely to apply, as this is causing calls for anti-bullying measures to be taken (c.f. The Ellen DeGeneres Message), and Matthew Shepard is even listed as an example there. If the deleted article is of insufficient quality to be posted in its own right, then it should be recreated (possibly under a different name, as previously suggested, or as a subpage of a suicide or bullying article) with a short summary until a better-quality article can be created. — RobinHood70 ^{( talk • contribs)} 09:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply