Wikipedia:Deletion review/Ginger Jolie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Having read and evaluated this discussion and carefully considered the AfD close, I find that there is a rough consensus to endorse Wizardman's closure. Consensus exists that in this particular case deletion is a reasonable outcome based on weighing the relevant factors of relative notability, BLP, and subjects wishes. In another case the balance of these factors might be different and admins are advised to be cautious befre citing this closure as precedent. While the proper disposition of this article is reasonably clear there is not consensus for a blanket rule that in the case of BLP's no consensus defaults to delete, or, for that matter, the reverse. Instead, the (lack of) notability of this particular person is considered such that deleting is endorsed in light of a request. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Jolie

[edit]

Ginger Jolie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Contentious deletion of article as the decision by closing admin was "no consensus, default to delete". There has already been an effort to send this to RfA - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Wizardman's closure of the Ginger Jolie deletion debate. That RfA was speedily rejected as it had not been listed here first. I've taken no sides in this debate yet, despite it occurring in the WP:P* area of which I am a member (declaring my conflicts of interest here folks). I'm merely listing this deletion here for debate to see if the decision is proper, since the most common action after a "no consensus" decision is "keep". Tabercil (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse I disagree with the outcome of the close and had I closed the debate I would have closed it as keep. However, this is within the realm of his (?) discretion as an administrator. He (just going with it) could have given the exact same rationale and ended with the bolded phrase "delete". Instead, he noted that consensus had not been reached but argued that other factors in the debate pushed us away from the traditional "default to keep for no consensus", namely BLP and the request for deletion by the subject. I don't want to talk about this setting a precedent or not, because technically nothing we do sets a precedent--this may cause people to close more contentious AfD's as delete even in the absence of consensus, but it probably won't. My suspicion is that regardless of the outcome of the DRV, "no consensus/delete" closes will still be as rare as hens teeth. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned in my posts on the closing admins talk page (and his reply to me on mine) I think he characterises the "four camps" in the !vote as:
1. Not notable - delete
2. Delete per subject's request and BLP (no opinion on notable)
3. Keep despite subject request (no opinion on notable)
4. Keep per notability overturning subject request.
And he then stated that 1 and 3 were minor elements and the two large (and balanced) camps were 2 and 4. Since the bulk of the thrust of the #2 position was, I believe, based on the BLP issue, I don't think we had "no consensus" on notability; I think we had no consensus on "delete". I think the actual position on notability was more weighted to her being notable, but that many of the people in cam #2 considered the notability to be low such that the BLP concerns overruled.
As such i think this decision sets a precedent that a person who would be notable enough that their article would survive a third party AfD nomination can, if the subject of the article finds it unhelpful in their life while not stating that the article as a whole is defamatory etc - I don't believe that the key elements of the article, that she modelled for Penthouse and performed in some porn films has been challenged at all - then on the subject's request the article is going to be deleted. This seems to create three classes of people:
1. plainly non notable - delete
2. Very notable - keep no matter what
3. middling notable - keep an article unless the subject doesn't like it
is this really what we want the policy to be?
It opens all kinds of issues: what if someone objects to part of their bio, perhaps from an earlier career. What if "Ms Jolie" does make it big as a model under her new 9own)name and gets an article; must we tyhen ignore her past, even if it's a matter of public record? What about people who don't change their name; former UK glamour model Samantha fox has taken massive exception to being questioned about her topless modelling in recent years (she has stormed out of interviews). Must her bio only start after she started keeping her top on? What youthful indiscretions are "forgiven" and what remain? Criminal records? or just being a member of some silly student political grouping that's now embarrassing?
Again, as I've mentioned elsewhere i don't think the closing admin acted in bad faith. But I think there are huge implications for this closure decision. As a minimum, I think we must settle whether we deleted a notable bio or a non-notable bio. If the latter, things are in some ways simpler (though not simpler for PORNBIO). But the former .... has consequences. My personal position is that she is notable, and I don't believe that was challenged sufficiently. i also believe that if we are to have a "forgiveness" policy it should apply only where there is a distinct change for the person, not a minor career shift. MadScot (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This particular case seems to have stirred up a lot of possibly misplaced sympathy. Even before Ginger Jolie's "SEO specialist" appeared, asking for the article to be deleted, an editor called JodyPalmer created an article called Jody Palmer, which was speedily deleted for notability reasons. I may be overly cynical, but I suspect this has more to do with creating the right sort of image for Maxim model Jody Palmer (formerly Ginger Jolie and AKA Alexa Kai) than anything else. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Forgiveness" is not the issue. The closures at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Fishkin, and others concluded in deletion without any expectation that the subject was embarking upon a career change. Wikipedia has precedents for courtesy deletion on the biographies of marginally notable subjects. In close calls administrators have weighed the wishes of the article subject. Endorse deletion. DurovaCharge! 03:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a reply to Madscot. I don't think we need worry too much about the impact of subject requested deletions. I think that administrators and OTRS volunteers have a good nose for obviously bad requests and most of the "subject requested" articles go to AfD, where the obviously notable (or whatever policy/guideline applies) ones are kept and the borderline/nn ones deleted. Something like Rick Ross's AfD following a deletion request shows that we don't slavishly follow them, and that is good. Protonk (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the deletion - Wikipedia does not reward people who are famous with a Wikipedia article because of their fame. The keep because she is famous arguments are weak. Wikipedia articles are not composed of compasion, love, hate, respect, they are composed of words and those words exclusively are to be sourced to reliable sources. There were no arguments that sufficiently rebutted the deletion reasoning that the topic lacked enought reliable source material to maintain an independent article. While the feel-good close seems to try to make some feel good that we done a good thing here and the "no consensus, default to delete" may be justified under Ignore all rules, the bottom line is that without source material to write an article, there is no article to write. The deletion outcome was correct based on the weight of arguments and I endorse the outcome. -- Suntag ☼ 05:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Wizardman put significant thought and thoughtfulness into the close and clearly weighed all opinions. Wizardman's close met the four core requirements of the Rough consensus portion of the Deletion guidelines for administrators: Wizardman use his best judgment, Wizardman attempted to be impartial, Wizardman sought to determine rough consensus, and Wizardman looked at strength of argument. In no way should Wizardman and/or Wizardman's close of Ginger Jolie be subject to any process other than this DRV and the closer of this DRV should list that in clear language. Hats off to the arbitrators for seeking to shut down the above noted arbitration process 21 minutes after it was listed. -- Suntag ☼ 05:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as within reasonable admin discretion. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Wizardman's closure was a welcome deviation of the usual !vote counting, with admins sometimes making decisions while saying they think are wrong. Wizardman put a lot of careful thought in the decision and as noted above, could also simply decided "Delete". The decison of "no consensus default to delete" is more honest and, may I use the word, wise. --Crusio (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • strongly endorse excellent close, with precedent. Sticky Parkin 13:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Per WP:DEL, no consensus defaults to keep. Discussion on defaulting to delete for BLP articles never reached consensus. Deletion is the last resort under WP:BLP, and the only BLP issue in that article was that the subject requested to take it down. The fact that she had an adult modeling career under a specific name is verifiable and considered notable under WP:PORNBIO and that is not a BLP violation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Wizardman's excellent close. Really folks it's time we started realising there's a real world out there, and what we do has consequences. We can quote WP:THIS and WP:THAT to say that because of internal rule 3434(ii) we need to keep this - but the bottom line is we don't. And if a subject feels harmed and you can't convince a majority of wikipedians that the article is important, then why not do the decent thing? Keeping low notability biographies leaves the unhappy subject having to check each day for offending material. I'd urge all admins to consider asking for a positive consensus that an article is important before retaining an objectionable biography. See my essay Wikipedia:Borderline biographies for a previous statement of the argument.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a subject feels harmed - then nobody cares. The subject is the one who was supposed to think about consequences. Why not do the "decent" thing? Because there are reliable sources and the subject is notable Netrat (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's just terrible. With the power to publish as prominently as wikipedia comes a responsibility to consider consequences of OUR choices. Those who decry that responsibility are not fit to be editors.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per common sense, doing the right thing, and not allowing Wikipedia to be used to violate peoples' privacy. I don't care what the policy pages might say at this moment in time. Policy on Wikipedia is whatever we decide to do. We should not keep borderline biographies when the subject does not want them. Per the deletion nom, "It has become a detriment to her work environment and her personal life." Jehochman Talk 15:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very bad approach, Jehochman. Wikipedia should care if the subject is covered by reliable sources or not - and nothing more. Deleting a bio just because the subject does not what the bio to be on Wikipedia would be a poor policy. Netrat (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Deleting a bio just because the subject does not what the bio to be on Wikipedia" would indeed be a bad policy. But that's NOT what's being argued here. What's been argued is that where the bio is borderline, and wikipedians are divided on whether it is notable or not, then we should perhaps not default to keeping it in the face of objections by the subject. Where we are fairly sure that we want to keep a bio, then we may well wish to disregard the subject's requests.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse good close. Well thought out. Well explained. Well within the discretion of an admin. Hey, if admins don't get to use discretion, why have them. They aren't cops enforcing legislation. This was a sensible move and no one is hurt by the result. I say bravo wizardman. xschm (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as being outside what consensus has determined is the proper approach to a no-consensus discussion. I respect Wizardman for the thoughtful approach to the close, but deletion based on no consensus is the wrong way to go. (I really should write an essay on policy drift, which this whole bio thing is a good example of.) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that deletion based on no consensus is the wrong way to go. The AfD delete arguments seemed to easily reached a conclusory "meets notablilty" conclusion. Without that "meets notablilty", the BLP balancing deletion language doesn't work. Building up a "precedent" of BLP balancing deletions and deletion closes to change policy is not the way to go. Getting BLP no-consensus defaulting to delete will require a consensus discussion participated in by a significant number of editors in a location that is away from an emotionally charged topic. AfD and DRV are not the place to establish such policy. This DRV can reject any perception that precedent or policy was established at the AfD and still endorse the deletion of the article for failing notability. Looking at what I wrote, this thing is a mess. You have those desiring deletion at AfD arguing "meets notablilty" and those at DRV arguing to endorse BLP no-consensus defaulting to delete in opposite of widely accepted policy. To keep DRV from going beyond its scope and becoming a tool of policy change, I think that one of the past two-months regular DRV closers should close this DRV. -- Suntag ☼ 20:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that's the wrong way round. Policy should reflect what we do, only when we change what we do, then do we update the policy page to describe a new reality. Policy isn't legislation that needs a vote for amending before we change activity.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn checking, it seems that keeping this article is "avoiding harm" . At present, WP is the first Google hit. With it removed, the first hit will be www pornstarbook com, with a nude photo of her as the main page content, followed by several similar (& Yahoo likewise). I'd like to close my argument there, as sufficient to show the absurdity. A policy that the wishes of the subject should be taken into account in borderline cases was was rejected by the community when the BLP policy was being worked out as incompatible with NPOV. And I do not think it a borderline case: if we include all the other Penthouse Pets of the Month, we should include her. Pure admin discretion is a recipe for chaos, given 1600 admins--it amounts to preferring the personal view of whoever gets there first. In this case, I think it was used overexpansively. Wizardman seems to say that, justifying it on the basis of the "spirit" of the BLP policy and his view of what is due to human dignity--which is what he would need to do, as there is no policy basis for deletion. I cannot see how it does harm to a person whose nude photos are in multiple very prominent sites on the open web to have a short Wikipedia article as well. "Do not harm" is ridiculous when it's about 1% of the exposure. And the true principal at stake is eliminated subject influence on WP articles, to keep us an encyclopedia and not a Who's Who. DGG (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This was a well-thought out and well-considered close. It is also well-explained. It is humane, sensitive to the competing interests and focused on what is best for the project.
I find the tone of the comments --- opposing deletion, asserting a dispute ripe for ArbCom, and advocting overturn here --- uncomfortably zealous. With so much else, and so many other more important things, to do here at Wikipedia, I'm always startled at the venom and vitriol of the arguments for outing porn actors' birth names and retaining every last scrap of information about porn actors who ask for a modicum of privacy.
It seems out of proportion to the cause. David in DC (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - As others pointed out, it was a well thought-out, well considered, and well explained close. What other sites show up in a search are not of our concern. When it comes down to our policies, for BLPs, no-consensus should default to delete. Particularly with the current issues with our BLP policy. لennavecia 19:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I agree with the closing admins well thought and well argued decision. I understand the opposition to it, and perhaps if the subject were further above the WP:N bar, and the information of greater relevance I might agree with them. But I don't in this case. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, I'm in agreement with those suggesting that a no consensus on a BLP AfD should be a default delete (as was done in this case). I'm more weakly in favour of considering a BLP subject's desire to have Bios deleted in the case of marginal notability, at least as a policy (I've agreed with it in at least several AfDs in the past), mostly due to the problem of defining "marginal notability". 03:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse This was a difficult close, and I think on balance the correct course of action. I don't think we should get hung up on the wording of the close. When consensus isn't clear, the closing admin is asked to weigh policy and guidelines, as well as contributor opinions, when coming to a conclusion - not just to close as Keep. As Jennavecia pointed out above, we should not give weight to what other websites say about a BLP subject (with the obvious exception of reliable sources). I also wanted to comment that, if BLP deletion policy does change towards explicit recignition of the three-tier model of notability laid out in MadScot's post, it will be because such an approach becomes established gradually on a case-by-case basis, which I do not see as a bad thing. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A no consensus on a BLP AfD should be a default delete, the more admins that follow this course the better. RMHED (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Frankly I do not think that "do no harm" applies in this case. Nor is this someone who has had their "notability" inflicted upon them. Passes the relevant guideline, so...Moreschi (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (with reservations). As I mentioned earlier, I had not taken a stance on this AFD prior to it closing and I was listing the deletion here more to reflect the controversy and have it properly looked at. Like some mention above, my own actions would have been different from Wizardman; I would have probably tried to seek a solution which would've satisfied both camps such as keeping the article, but reducing it to the barest stub possible and locking it so admins only can edit it (with a comment at the top of the article to point would-be editors to the AFD). Now having said that I can understand both sides (the four camps Wizardman alluded to in his closing statement) and I can understand and sympathize with Wizardman's dilemma. He did an exceptional job laying out the "why" behind his decision and for the clarity of his argument I do commend him; give yourself a barnstar for that Wiz. <G>
My reservations stem from the exception to the normal "no consensus" default of "keep", but others have pointed out this is an exception to all the normal rules. I also have reservations as some people seem to be trying to use the deletion of the Ginger Jolie article as precedent for the deletion of other porn stars - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prinzzess, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Chase and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelica Bella (3rd nomination), plus the mass prodding of other Penthouse Pets - see Renee Diaz, Paris Dahl, Gina Austin and Montana Bay, for example. Fortunately that seems not to have happened.
Now, MadScot points out that we seem to be headed towards three classes of articles: clearly notable (kept irregardless), clearly non-notable (deleted irregardless) and mildly notable (keep unless objected to by subject of article). I personally would like to make sure that for deletions under the third category we require more of a rationale from the subject than a simple "I don't like it". Since we haven't had that many subjects ask for deletion so far (to my knowledge), I'll leave the topic idle. Tabercil (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse well reasoned close. Guest9999 (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion Essentially per Tabercil. A genuine no-consensus is up to admin discretion. Frankly, I think that the admin discretion in this situation made the wrong decision. I find it borderline ridiculous that we would delete an article about someone who doesn't want publicity about their career when they are staying the same industry. However, it isn't nearly as a big deal as if this were someone involved in politics or public policy issues or such. Moreover, admin discretion when there is a slight preference for deletion (by my count 24 deletes to 21 keeps at the overall) isn't intrinsically unreasonable. Finally, in reference to Tabercil's comments above I agree that we need to get an idea of what rationales are really acceptable from subjects and what subjects constitutes borderline notable. (Need to think about this more. Withdrawing endorsement for now) I will once again recommend that people read User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP and also User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
plug for further reading Jimbo's wisely ambiguous 2c, discussion from April 2007 discussion April 2008. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Changing mind from above remark. Moving it over here for clarity of reading. There's no way to reasonably read this but as no-consensus and previous discussions at WT:BLP specifically rejected the notion that BLP deletions should default to delete. This is thus going against the pre-existing concensus on BLP deletions. Nor can anyone claim that people did not take into account the subject's desire for privacy. If given that context there's not a consensus to delete then there isn't any consensus to delete. This is a willing public figure. Furthermore, DGG correctly points out that given what google searches for the Jolie's name show up instead of Wikipedia the notion that a Wikipedia article is causing any harm is ridiculous on its face. I and a variety of others have argued that willing public figures should not be given courtesy deletions and judging by where most of these sorts of courtesy-deletion discussions are going it seems like the community is moving towards that sort of result or something close to it. Thus, this action hinders rather than helps any form of developing consensus on what to do with requests by subjects for deletion.

Also, there are apparently serious worries about whether the individual who requested this is the individual in question. That needs to be established if we are going to do something like thist.

Also this individual continues to operate in the same industry as before it is clear that this is not the case of a hypothetical individual returning to a private life but quite the opposite. The only remotely plausible reason that the individual would want this article deleted would be for either some direct economic benefit or some SEO sort of concern. Neither of these should be anything remotely strong enough as reasons to call for deletion.

Finally, my earlier tally was apparently in error. One gets a total of 24/23 for deletion. Now if there were a slightly substantial fill for deletion that might be a real no-consensus situation but when it is close to 50/50 that's a keep by any reasonable standard. Generally substantially greater than 50% but not enough for a clear consensus is where there's no consensus. 51% (barely) is hardly no-consensus especially when to get the 24/23 result one needs to count multiple deletes which by their own description were only "weak delete". Thus, if anything this was a question of whether to be closed as "no-consensus" or outright "keep". JoshuaZ (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Agree with above by Stifle (talk · contribs), Pete.Hurd (talk · contribs), Jennavecia (talk · contribs), among others. Also appreciate the well thought out comments by Wizardman (talk · contribs), who was most certainly within discretion on this one. Cirt (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The reason for deletion is well explained by Wizardman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaty2 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse — Just because someone got naked in front of a camera a couple of times, they aren't automatically inherently notable. --Cyde Weys 03:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn While I support the idea that there should be a mechanism by which people can ask for their WP entry to be deleted, there needs to be some consistency in its application. If someone wants to opt out, by all means delete their article, but first let's make sure that they are who they say they are. We do similar vetting for copyrights, etc through OTRS. And if we are going to allow people to opt out, let's codify it so that isn't applied inconsistently (or vindictively withheld). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Extremely well reasoned close. The subject was of borderline notability, so while I'd be inclined towards the keep side, deletion would have been a possibility that I could understand. However, when added to the reasoning given by the closing admin, I find myself in full support of the decision. I would have felt differently, perhaps, if the subject was just marginally more notable - but then it is quite possible that the closing admin would have felt differently, too. - Bilby (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, I respect what Wizardman was trying to do in closing, and appreciate his lengthy rationale, but the whole "BLP defaults to delete" argument has not yet gotten consensus. "No consensus" means default to keep, and there was clearly no consensus there. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn My feelings are similar to what others have said above. Wizardman did an excellent job of thinking long and hard about the situation and put forth a great deal of time and effort to do what he felt was best for the project. However, BLP defaulting to delete is not the norm yet, and I'm not comfortable with using it here. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (keep deleted for now), noting excellent closing explanation by a well respected admin, and supporting the notion of “no consensus, default to delete” for BLPs. Reconsider (relist) if compelling new sources arise. Undelete when she dies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Three issues. #1 We aren't even sure that the person asking for deletion is the subject of the article. #2 We've had this discussion and the idea of deleting articles because the subject requests it is not what we decided. #3 There was no consensus to delete, and an admin shouldn't override that lack of consensus. 141.212.111.116 (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per WP:BBLP, which should be policy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BBLP does not apply in this case - there are plenty of sources for information other than WP; there is now considerable interest in this article so I'm sure it will appear on many watchlists; and as DGG points out above, WP can actually provide balance to what is already out there (and unlikely to disappear so long as someone is making money from it). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BBLP does not depend on "plenty of other sources of information" (assuming arguendo it applies to this case), and if it does, it shouldn't. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BBLP was rejected as policy, and should be so marked, not as an essay. It would mean that if someone is borderline notable, they get an article only if they like the contents. this is the total denial of NPOV. If they should get an article by our standards, they should; if not, not; and the last person capable of objectively judging in either direction is themselves. The Noconsensus default to delete was also rejected by the community when proposed as part of policy. What are we really proposing: include middle-importance nude models if they want to be included , and not otherwise? that's turning us into an online advertising agency. DGG (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus BLP AfD's should indeed default to delete, it does not require community consensus, all it requires is enough admins to follow this course of action and it becomes policy by default. The sooner the bettter in my opinion. I urge all admins who give a damn about BLP's, especially those of the marginally notable, to follow suit and make a no consensus AfD mean default delete. RMHED (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BBLP (which, incidentally, I wrote) is NOT primarily about the views of the subject at all. It is a recognition that sometimes, due to a low level of interest among wikipedians, whilst some articles CAN in theory be written in a NPOV and verifiable manner, it is somewhat unlikely that they will be written, or certainly will be maintained in such a mannter. Whilst, in general our eventualist philosophy says that's acceptable, it really isn't if it means we are likely to have a bad article on a living person for some time, which few wikipedians will be interested in maintaining in a fair manner. In such cases, where there is little enthusiasm for keeping the article, admins may wish to consider erring towards delete closes. That's all. Certainly it is perhaps controversial - but it is never been rejected. It isn't a policy proposal, since it merely invites admins to consider some special circumstances when using the judgement which policy already gives them. I'd resist it becoming "policy" in any legalistic way.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, per many thoguhtful comments above. Guy (Help!) 00:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, although I would have closed as defaulting to keep. I long have advocated that it is fair for the closer to consider the wishes of a marginally notable person in determining the outcome of a deletion discussion, and that is what Wizardman did here. While technically out of process, as in my opinion the community clearly has indeed rejected the BLP shift to delete as a matter of policy, Wizardman's close was still a fair use of WP:IAR, although he did not claim it as such, or of the additional powers ARBCOM devolved to admins. As an interesting aside, if those who claim the subject will continue a career in the public eye are correct, that added notability at some point may well justify this article's resurrection. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is already continuing their career in the public eye, as Jody Palmer, who appears in Maxim and FHM magazines. Here's a snapshot of http://jody-palmer.blogspot.com/ which is maintained by Khat who describes themselves as an "SEO specialist'. Note that the original request for deletion came from User:Khaty2, who described themselves as "Ginger Jolie's SEO specialist". And who !voted in this DRV despite their COI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Denounce. There is no question that the outcome was procedurally correct, since the Arbitration Committee established a rule whereby, in BLP situations, a self-selected closing administrator was authorized to substitute his or her own policy preferences for community judgment and whatever community consensus might exist. It is also clear that the closer without community consensus, and implemented a standard for which there was no consensus. This is a problem created by a poorly judged ArbComm action. It needs to be resolved, and cannot be resolved without further action by that committee. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To follow up on delicious carbuncle argument, she is also modeling for Playboy newsstand specials and videos under the name, Jody Palmer. Still pornography. Just a different name. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why we should have these strict guidelines for barely notable living people. Is there any substantive evidence that they are the same person, besides for the barely circumstantial evidence offered up by Carbuncle. I realize that the latest hobby of Wikipedia editors is to drag barely notable people through the trash, but this is a first - two people at once. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the original request by the (supposed) subject of the Ginger Jolie article stated that she was now modelling as Jody Palmer. So if it is the same person, that seems to be proof. if not, then we are deleting an article by request of a third party, not the subject.MadScot (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • | This help desk entry which was linked to in the AfD debate and states "I'm Jody Palmer aka Ginger Jolie. I used to model under that name, but have now branched into mainstream modeling and appear in Dec. issue of Maxim magazine. I would really like the Ginger Jolie page to be deleted since I have passed that part of my lfie and am trying to move on. Is it possible? I would really, really appreciate it." Note, no assertion that the article was false, defamatory, misleading, or anything else. And I don't think the article even linked the two at the time, though I could be wrong there. MadScot (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC) PS I've tended to remove reference to the two names, but hell, it's almost the core of the argument.[reply]
  • I'm at a bit at a loss as to how to respond to Brewcrewer's suggestion that I'm trying to drag someone through the mud. That isn't my intention. I also believe that the connection between Ginger Jolie and Jody Palmer is known, plays a large part in this particular DRV discussion, and can easily be confirmed to a reasonable degree of confidence by doing a quick image comparison. I'm not sure how Ginger Jolie, nude model, would be "dragged through the mud" by being misidentified as Jody Palmer, cheesecake model. I can see how Jody Palmer, cheesecake model, might be offended if misidentified as Ginger Jolie , but I didn't come up with this idea - I'm simply repeating what appears to be obvious. I also believe that DRV discussions are no longer indexed by Google. Thanks to MadScot for digging up that earlier request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, as was pointed out above but I missed, Jody Palmer has done nude modelling for Playboy: IMDB link. So I suppose it's a really a case of a hardcore porn actress and model versus a softcore porn actress and model. Please note that while I personally have no interest in modelling for either hard or softcore porn, I accept that it's a choice that some people make and I'm not judging it in any way. I suspect that the porn aspect of this case has made this discussion far more polarized than it otherwise would be. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't call that a third party request, because they presented themself as acting on her behalf. I wouldn't call a letter from someone's lawyer a third party request either. MadScot (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Overturn- the closing admin admitted that it was a no consensus, and, as far as I know, no consensus means a default to keep. While I'm sorry that this woman does not want the page, she remains notable, and therefore I think the page should have been kept.Umbralcorax (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The absence of consensus to delete should always default to keep. The article is one of a series of articles of Category:Penthouse Pets, which is incomplete in her absence. Penthouse Pets are notable; there is no "borderline" about it; to claim that they are unnoticed by reliable sources is simply untenable, and the claim suggests cultural bias. And frankly, applying BLP in the way it's being applied here violates common sense. Posing for Penthouse is not something you do without intending to expose yourself, in more senses than one. You may repent of it, or regret it; but it leaves a published record that can't be taken back. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • RE: notability. Appearance in the magazine doesn’t satisfy “independence” of the source, and independence aside, mere appearance doesn’t mean the source was secondary. Being used for illustrative purposes is below the ar for establishing notability. Ginger has, of course, coverage beyond mere illustration in a magazine published by her employer, but your references to notability ignore our standard threhold tests. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, no consensus does not default to delete, nor is there any other reason for deletion. There are plenty of sources to have a neutral and accurate article on this subject. What she did for an occupation is not exactly private information. We should not be in the business of whitewashing, nor does BLP apply to well-sourced, non-private information. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This took me a lot longer to decide than I thought. I actually wasn't going to get involved originally, but I want to comment on the overturn's main point, that being no consensus should always default to keep. We have to keep in mind that there are exceptions where there are extenuating circumstances, such as the subject's wish for a deleted article. Now, was this a satisfactory request? That's a judgment call in and of itself, but to say "absolutely no" delete motions on no consensus closes is troubling; you have to keep the door open in rare cases. Wizardman 03:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While one might agree that there are rare cases, that isn't an argument that this should be one of those cases. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm wondering that as well. I don't know why this would be such a rare case, there are plenty of sources here, and it's not exactly the case that the information here was private (what exactly is? A quick Google certainly turns up the information quite readily in the top results), so I'm not sure what the BLP concern here is. BLP doesn't mean "subjects must like their bios". Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I’m happy to go with “no consensus for BLPs defaults to delete”, but I’m a bit hesitant that the AfD was “no consensus”. Seraphimblade, I’m reading you as suggesting that some of the delete !votes were weak with respect to policy and that a close of “keep” could have been justified. If so, then maybe a relist is in order. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would have no objection to a relist. Given the contentiousness of the issue, I don't think discussing it further would be a bad idea at all. That being said, I strongly object to "no consensus for BLPs defaults to delete". We make changes such as deletions only if community consensus supports it. If it does not, we do not hit that button, and here, that button should not have been pressed. Wizardman's decision was undoubtedly made in the best of faith, but it was still the wrong one. We don't even self-censor for the protection of minors. I agree with that policy, but we certainly shouldn't then turn around and self-censor to benefit those whose actions were taken as a consenting adult. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - No consensus doesn't default to delete. The reasons to delete the bio were quite weak. I don't think Jolie's request to delete her bio was a reasonable request. The bio didn't say any controversial things about Jolie. She passes our notability criteria. And this is not a rare case, Jolie wanted to delete the bio for her own convenience. AdjustShift (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Policy is made here, for the most part, by what we do, not what is declared as policy. Those arguing that no consensus closes default to keep are trying to preserve the status quo. But I think the tide is shifting... that we need to take more care with BLPs... that we need to respect the subjects wishes in marginal cases... that we first do no harm. Therefore this endorse of the delete is one voice saying "No, consensus is changing"... every time we have a marginal case, and we endorse a delete, we move consensus a bit in the correct direction. I think those who say it hasn't moved already are not correct. If on the other hand policy in this area is made by fiat, it's hard to argue that there hasn't been a fiat in favour of this movement in the "first do no harm" direction. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first sentence is true to some extent. But the bottom line is that there was an attempt to get consensus for this sort of rule and it was quite clear that there wasn't any consensus for it. To then try to get around it by deleting the articles and forcing them to go to DRV is nothing sort of an attempt to bypass the community's decision on the matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What Lar is advocating, if I understand it correctly, makes me extremely uncomfortable. I have mentioned before that I agree the wishes of marginally notable subjects should be considered in deletion debates. However, I feel Wizardman's action should be considered somewhere near the limit of admin discretion. Since only admins can close discussions as delete, only admins can make the policy advance that Lar mentions. I am very uncomfortable with admins making policy in this manner in the absence of community consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I wasn't entirely in agreement with the rationale behind the deletion, but I understand and agree with the spirit of the argument behind Wizardman's decison. He took a very difficult AfD and made a good and well though out call even though he knew it would be unpopular with several other editors. The closing admin did not make an unwarranted decision here, there was significant precedent behind his decision. Trusilver 22:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There are two questions here. One, is it permissible that the article no longer exists. That is, should the article have been deleted. I agree that the article should no longer exist per the community's view of what standard we should apply to BLPs. Second, was Wizardman's close of default delete valid. Based on what I have seen in the various debates on how to apply BLP, it appears this is valid close. Therefore, this DRV should close with the article remaining deleted per Wizardman's close. MBisanz talk 00:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It's probably not what I would have done, but we have to give admins a certain amount of discretion in cases such as these. --Tango (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Ginger_Jolie&oldid=1089818465"