Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 8#Amy Bechtold

:{{DRV links|The Ville}}

For the first time, an article on a Zynga game was deleted before anyone had time to expand it. Georgia guy Georgia guy (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

:Expired prods are almost always undeleted upon request (unless the article meets a speedy deletion criteria) so in the future it would be best to ask the person who deleted the article first since that is consider contesting it. To get back on track it should be restored due to the prod being contested unless there is serious problem with the article (ie a copyright violation). That said there is a good chance that if the article is restored that it will be brought up for deletion per WP:AFD so I suggest that you look for reliable sources to add to the article. Fortunately under normal circumstances AFD's last at least 7 days so there would be time to find and add sources to the article.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Thrive_(film)|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thrive_%28film%29|article=}}

Subject is (sufficiently) noteworthy.

I __definitely__ don't have any personal investment or interest in this film, but my sense is that it is noteworthy enough to merit an entry in Wikipedia. It has reviews in noteworthy popular media (Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgia-kelly/thrive-film_b_1168930.html), a legit IMDB page with 23 reviews, and so on. If it's difficult to maintain an unbiased, factual entry because of continuous sockpuppetry, that's a separate problem. Right? Joseph N Hall (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse listing adds nothing beyond the deletion debate. The huffington post article was considered in the debate, and imdb is not a reliable source. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• The movie is still out there and people are still seeing it and mentioning it. I submitted this review request precisely because a friend of mine mentioned to me that she was watching it, and I went to Wikipedia, and (a) it was a film I had heard of repeatedly over a period of months (and its subject matter isn't something that interests me) and (b) it had no Wikipedia page. This was a novel experience (for me). I didn't find the closing editor's argument compelling. If the article quality wasn't an issue I suspect it would never have been deleted. When I read the deletion review, I felt that the deletion was a means to an end, the "end" being removing an outlet for troublesome sockpuppetry. It may well be that the film's promoter(s) have used Wikipedia as free publicity, but that I think should be a separate concern. Joseph N Hall (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, this is apparently a 2nd request for review (the first being made shortly after the original deletion). My reading of the original discussion is that recreating the page with a short article "with sources" would not have been opposed. So, perhaps the reason that there isn't an article is that no one (other than someone using Wikipedia as a sales medium) felt like (re)creating one. Joseph N Hall (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse The closure was in line with the consensus. I have looked for sources, and could only find sources which did not meet the guidelines here at Wikipedia. People may be mentioning it - but unfortunately, none of them are doing it at reliable sources which are independent of the subject. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is another print article: http://www.sfreporter.com/santafe/article-6675-new-age-of-paranoia.html. In addition, I remember a minor stir created when people featured in the film publicly distanced themselves from its content: http://www.santacruz.com/news/2012/04/10/author_john_robbins_other_progressives_denounce_thrive. Honestly, I think an article capturing this bit of perfunctory noteworthiness would be ... um, noteworthy. Joseph N Hall (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

And another lengthy article (not one of the various blogs pro/con that has grown up around the film) covering the film's contents as well as various responses to it: http://www.metroactive.com/features/thrive-cult-film.html. Also, note that many of the people who have appeared in the film are notable (and appear on Wikipedia). And apparently there is a substantial web viewership (although there is no number I can verify). Anyway, enough already. Joseph N Hall (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse Given the sources available at the time, the nearness of the discussion to the film's premiere, and the discussion itself, the closer made exactly the right call. I myself disputed the reliability of the Huffington Post as a source (and still hold the position). However, in view of the three new sources the lister has provided in this review, I see no reason why that lister couldn't, if he chose, write a new article on the subject. As opposed to restoration, a new article creation would avoid many of the problems (specifically sockpuppetry) which plagued the first version. If, as the newly presented sources claim, the film has been seen a million times online and has developed a cult following (something about which we had no sources to discuss in February), a new writing of the page seems inevitable. BusterD (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to write a short article. What is the procedure for creating an article to replace a deleted page? Joseph N Hall (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

: No special procedure. If it hadn't been restored for DRV you could have just created it at the right title directly, as it is you're probably better off creating it in a subpage of your userspace and then moving it to mainspace once it's ready. e.g. User:Joe n bloe/Thrive. Only thing to be careful of when doing that is not to include mainspace categories until it's been moved to mainspace. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

:: Okey doke, I will do that sometime soon when when I'm in the mood.Joseph N Hall (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Amy Bechtold|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Bechtold (2nd nomination)}}

:{{DRV links|David Conn (judge)|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Conn (judge)}}

The closing administrator did not explain their closure of Amy Bechtold -- or David Conn (judge). I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crisco_1492&diff=499298776&oldid=499277979#Could_you_please_explain_... requested an explanation]. Disappointingly, the closing administrator [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crisco_1492&diff=499304863&oldid=499298776 merely repeated] what seemed like the same unsubstantiated misconceptions that had been advanced in the Afd even though they contradicted the specific wording of the relevant topic specific guideline -- WP:Notability (people)#Politicians. The closing administrator also asserted that these individuals did not meet the criteria in the WP:GNG. GNG is a shortcut to WP:Notability, which has a sidebar that lists a dozen topic specific guidelines. I always thought the topic specific notability guidelines supplemented, amended, and superceded the general notability guidelines. I checked the guidelines -- and their talk pages. I saw many contributors make the point that there would be no point in having topic specific guidelines at all, if the GNG had to apply to every article.

I believe the topic specific guideline that applies to these two articles is WP:Notability (people)#Politicians. It has a clause that says national and state/provincial judges are notable. Some in the delete camp claimed the unofficial Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People essay applied instead of the topic specific guideline. I think the official guideline WP:Notability (academics) says it clearest. It asserts that individuals who met its notability criteria are notable without regard to whether the individuals do not meet the criteria of other notability guidelines. So, even if WP:SOLDIER was an official guideline -- not an essay -- it would not over-ride WP:POLITICIAN.

The misconceptions I mentioned above were that in order to meet the "judge" clause of WP:POLITICIAN a judge had to sit on a "major appellate court" or a Supreme Court. This is not what the guideline says, and it is at odds with earlier closures. Finally, I dispute that the USCMCR is not a "major appellate court" -- as it is the only appellate court in the entire military commission system. Prior to the instantiation of the Military Commission system the USA had two judicial systems -- its civilian and its military judicial systems. Legal critics call it a third judicial system. Cases can't be appealed beyond the USCMCR, cannot be appealed to the SCOTUS. Geo Swan (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• As the closing administrator, I should note here that I stand by my original closure. The board was a single purpose board consisting of otherwise non-notable people; these people received no coverage outside of their participation with the board, and now that it's disbanded they're no longer receiving any coverage. I thought it was clearly explained in my reply, but it appears that Geo Swan disagrees. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• The wikipedia's policies include Ignore all rules. Although the closing administrator doesn't explicitly say so, I believe their closure here represents two instances where they have ruled contrary to the specific wording of a relevant guideline -- without explicitly saying “I think I am authorized to invoke Ignore all rules.”.

:: I suggest that when an administrator is going to exercise IAR they have an obligation to (1) explicitly acknowledge they are exercising IAR; (2) offer a good reason as to why they are invoking IAR. In this particular case I am afraid it seems to me that the closing administrator did not bring independent neutral mind-set to the closure. The wording of the relevant guideline says nothing about "single purpose boards". I suggest that the closing administrator should have weighed in in the discussion themselves with the "single purpose board" argument, and left the closure to an administrator who could bring a neutral mind-set to the closure.

:: Closing administrator asserts the board “consisted of otherwise non-notable people”. This is incorrect. The members of the United States Court of Military Commission Review were selected from among the very most senior members of the judiciary. Griffin Bell, for instance, was a former Attorney General of the United States -- a cabinet level position. William Thaddeus Coleman, Jr. was also a former cabinet member, a former Secretary of Transportation. Prior to becoming a civilian judge Edward G. Biester, Jr. served ten terms in the US Congress. All the members of the USCMCR were very senior jurists. While Bechtold was not as notable as the former cabinet members, she had served as Chief Judge of the Air Force's Court of Military Review, prior to serving on the USCMCR. Further, I suggest this portion of the closing administrator's comment suggests the closing administrator simply doesn't understand why we have topic specific guidelines, which supercede the GNG for narrow classes of topics.

:: Closing administrator repeats a serious misconception I already addressed when they first voiced it on their talk page -- that the USCMCR had been "disbanded". The USCMCR convened earlier this year and can be expected to be active for some time to come -- years, possibly decades. Geo Swan (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

::* As a general rule of thumb if someone is thinking about WP:IAR then generally it's actually an invalid application of it. Any editor or admins prime focus should be about improving the encyclopedia, that may result in ignoring some rule or another, but it isn't a conscious application of WP:IAR. Not least of course to mention the admin here I assume doesn't believe it's such a case, that's your construction. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse the closing by the admin. He was completely justified in judging the consensus of the community regarding this WP:BLP article. This DRV does not follow Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Principal_purpose_.E2.80.93_challenging_deletion_decisions as it is created simply because creator Geo Swan disagreed with a deletion debate's outcome. The issue was well discussed at the AfDs above. --DBigXray 02:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Both articles are BLPs and very few sources could be found on the individuals covered hence the closes are correct. Geo Swan's argument that members of this court are automatically notable is contradicted by the near total absence of sources on them either as individuals or which provide commentary on their role as judges, as well as the introductory text to the relevant section of WP:BIO (WP:BIO#Additional criteria) which notes that positions alone do not in fact automatically grant notability ("meeting one or more [of the criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included"). It's also worth noting that the David Conn article - as created by Geo Swan - was basically a WP:COATRACK article until it was nominated for deletion (complete with potentially libelous material on another individual). Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse the SNG needs to be read, rather than reading the snippet you'd want to apply. The nutshell summary of the policy indicates it to be pretty similar to the GNG, the basic criteria likewise. The additional criteria of which the section linked is one, states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (Emphasis changed). The SNG when written were always meant as a guide to the kind of people who would likely be notable and sources would likely be out there, they weren't written as a subsitute, if challenged for the sources they are still required. That all side as per others, simply disagreeing with the outcome isn't a DRV issue. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Thank you to all you AfD participants for reiterating your positions there. Overturn both to no consensus, since there was no consensus to delete in either of those cases. The BLP arguments hold no water at all. "BLP" means "remove unsourced negative information about living people". It does not mean "delete articles about living people". And DGG's argument that appellate-level judges are inherently notable is quite convincing.—S Marshall T/C 14:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• overturn The decision that this is a simple administrative board is in blatant disregard of the actual situation. Judges are notable as judges, not for their personal life, and the presence or absence of information about their personal life is irrelevant in either direction. I can recall no other decision here of judges at a comparable level where anything was demanded except verification of their position. The very reason we have such a guideline is because for some types of political office there will be little other material available.The relationship of the GNG and the special guidelines varies--not just for judges, but for politicians in general we always accept their position as a definitive argument--the arguments are always cases where we technically meet the GNG, but the position requirement is not really met, in which case we usually delete, though I have often argued for keep in such situations. As S Marshall says, there are no actual issues relevant to WP:BLP. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

::As I was very much involved in the discussion, and remain so, perhaps some other admin will restore the articles for the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

:::{{done}}. Note that David Conn (judge) was moved during the AfD to David L. Conn. JohnCD (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse both- The consensus in the David Conn AfD was clear and no other closure was possible. The Amy Bechtold one was closer, but I think still within the bounds of administrator discretion. Reyk _YO! 03:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• With regard to administrator discretion -- administrators are supposed to discount arguments that are counter-policy. Participants in the delete camp kept repeating the counter-policy argument that the ESSAY WP:SOLDIER should take precedence over the GUIDELINE WP:POLITICIAN. Other participants claimed Conn and Bechtold hadn`t served on a major appellate court or a supreme court. These arguments should also have been ignored by the closing administrator, as these requirements were not in the guideline, and, when asked, the contributors who first advanced these claims were unwilling or unable to offer an explain why further restrictions, not in the guideline, should be required. In his or her first explanation on their talk page the closing administrator specifically said they based their closure on counter-policy arguments.

:: I'll be frank, in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crisco_1492&diff=501190191&oldid=501189595 this further comment] on their talk page the closing administrator told the nominator that I needed to read WP:WALLOFTEXT. I am afraid this further confirmed a nagging concern I had -- that the reason the closing administrator didn't address my counter-arguments was that they didn't feel closing administrators had an obligation to read the positions of contributors they didn't already agree with.

:: I accept that administrators get to exercise a measure of discretion. But does that discretion authorize them to prefer the advice of a narrowly accepted essay rather than the applicable broadly accepted guideline -- without providing any explanation? This is what the closing administrator did -- they merely echoed those contributors who cited the narrowly accepted essay, and ignored the broadly accepted guideline. Geo Swan (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse - Elected judges at the state level are automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN, but I do not see military judges falling under the same guideline. This is more of Geo Swan's overzealous coverage of all things Guantanamo Bay, we're finally going through what is I hope the last batch of Gitmo detainee articles now. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

::all US federal appellate judges are appointed, including those on the supreme court, and the logic above would mean none of them were notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

::That's kindof a given; I presumed we were discussing less-than-federal judges here. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

:::Sure. And these are US federal judges also. Which is the other government that appointed them? DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

::::Military judge =/= federal judge. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

:::::I think you mean they, analogous to other administrative judges, are not in the judicial branch of the government, but in the administrative branch. But their authority is derived directly from the federal government and in that sense they are federal judges. the highest level of a judge in any part of the US government is notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse, within admin discretion. As to DGG's argument, the highest military court in the U.S. is the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and the decision of the Court of Military Commission Review are appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That is, this court is one layer below the federal circuit courts whose judges we regard as generally notable. T. Canens (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• I have several questions please.

:: First, you write: “That is, this court is one layer below the federal circuit courts whose judges we regard as generally notable.” I think the wording of WP:POLITICIAN says all judges who hold a national office. Can you point to judges who hold a national officer we didn't consider notable -- even though the wording of WP:POLITICIAN says they are?

:: Second, you wrote: “the decision of the Court of Military Commission Review are appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.” The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 tried to remove access to habeas corpus from the Guantanamo captives. It made CSR Tribunals subject to limited appeals before the DC Circuit of Appeals. I am not a lawyer, but my research into the Military Commissions Act of 2006, I think you are mistaken, and that the United States Court of Military Commission Review were not appealable -- at all. I haven't spent as much time looking at the Military Commission Act of 2009. Is it the one you thought made decisions of the USCMCR appealable to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals? No offense, but I am going to assume you confused the Military Commissions, with the (administrative) CSR Tribunals.

::* I checked. My recollection [http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3868 was wrong], appeal to the DC Court was authorized in 2006. Geo Swan (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

:: Since the DC Circuit Court of Appeals hears appeals from US District Courts in DC, which you acknowledged, are judges we consider notable, could you explain why you assert the USCMCR is more junior than the US District Court judges? Geo Swan (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

::: I'll assume for the moment that federal district judges are automatically notable (I said D.C. Circuit judges are notable, not district judges). First, CMCR judges have no life tenure, are appointed without Senate confirmation and can be removed without impeachment. Unlike federal district judges, they can't sit by designation on the courts of appeals, or any other federal court for that matter. Their jurisdiction is limited to a very narrow category of cases, and they must sit in panels to hear cases. The best normal federal-court analogue of CMCR that I can think of are Bankruptcy Appellate Panels in circuits that have them (both are composed of article I judges with limited job security and powers and both have a narrow jurisdiction), and I don't think anyone is arguing that federal bankruptcy judges are automatically notable. T. Canens (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse - They super glued[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500165_162-20070760.html] Bechtold's brain and a few news outlets mentioned it. That didn't lead to biography articles on her and that one issue isn't even enough info for a stand alone article. The keeps argument basically is that Wikipedia is here to honor important people with an article merely because they are important. How are national-level appellate judges WP:GNG notable ex officio if no reliable source is writing about them? If there's not enought reliable source material from which to develop the article, there's nothing to put in it. That's wiki 101 right there. The deletes had a strong argument that was not overcome by the keeps. David Conn article stands or falls with the Bechtold article since they were nominated together. Endorse deletion of both. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• weak endorse of both though Amy Bechtold's was certainly best closed as NC given the debate, taking into account the other AfD outcome delete is (just) within discretion. That said, it's sad to see simple stubs of clearly notable people (in the English sense, not the Wikipedia sense) deleted. It gains us nothing and only harms our coverage. Hobit (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)