Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. This is the second nomination within a matter of hours (the previous was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Jo Cox), the first was closed as speedy keep and this nomination is not going to result in a different outcome with nobody other than the nominator advancing an opinion in favour of deletion. This is without prejudice to a third nomination (if desired) when things have settled down and more facts are known and different arguments can be advanced. Speaking now in my capacity as an editor not closing administrator, I'd suggest a renomination sooner than about a week's time will be liable to be speedily kept again, unless there is very significant new information. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jo Cox

[edit]
Death of Jo Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is explicitly not about the notability of the event (if you take a look at the ITNC nomination, you'll see quite clearly that I was heavily involved in getting the story onto the main page in a timely manner. I am nominating this specific article as the only content which should be in here would be insufficient to justify a stand-alone article. The parts about the event itself, beyond the very basics, are unambiguous and irreconcilable breaches of WP:BLPCRIME (the basics should be – and are – in the victim's article anyway). The reaction parts are totally out of proportion to the scale of the remainder of what can tenably be kept in the article itself, and to be honest the subject's article does a far better job in this aspect as well. What the reaction section needs to do is give a representative flavour of the tone and stature of the people who are reacting to the event – Cox's article does this perfectly well.

No prejudice to recreation after a conviction, at which point a stand-alone article may be able to stand on its own two feet. But right now this article is absolutely incapable of being anything other than a BLP-breaker, and/or a total overlap of what either is, or absolutely should be, in the parent article. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of crap. The suspect has been widely named in the quality media worldwide and in the UK. Additionally you better call the Police on Jeremy Corbyn he called it "murder". Furthermore BLPCRIME was discussed in the nom a few hours ago. AusLondonder (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy Corbyn is not (to my knowledge) a Wikipedia editor. Regrettably, you are. Though not a particularly honest one if you are seriously arguing that BLPCRIME was discussed in that nomination. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So (your interpretation of) the law only applies on Wikipedia not in the real world? BLPCRIME was raised. AusLondonder (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where it is possible to possibly break a law whilst abiding by Wikipedia policy, that is at the user's risk. I certainly wouldn't encourage it. On the other hand editors cannot choose whether to abide by Wikipedia's content policy. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a young Wikipedian, I'd recommend keeping this article until more information about her tragic death is known, as after all known factual information is added and false information removed, we can work on improving this article to meet wikipedia's standards. This is an emotional issue and there will be edit wars and content that violates Wikipedia's guidelines, but in a few weeks they should have reduced and we can work on improving the article. Therefore I vote keep, as a separate article would allow the heated discussion not to overlap onto other parts of the Jo Cox article.
  • Keep until more information available
David Greener (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just clarify. Is this a joke? Are you saying for example we would have had to wait for the conviction of Anders Behring Brevik before starting the 2011 Norway attacks article? AusLondonder (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was an attack on a large number of people without a Wikipedia article to cover the matter. Very different from this situation. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So if a "large number" of victims are involved your interpretation of BLPCRIME changes? AusLondonder (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone with a modicum of willingness to read step in here? This event is notable – I was explicit about the fact that I was nominating for deletion based on something other than notability. However there is somewhere to cover it adequately without distorting the article: Jo Cox. That Norway event was also notable, and there was nowhere to cover it, hence a new article was created.

As for the relationship between that part of my argument and WP:BLPCRIME: BLPCRIME applies to Jo Cox equally as it does to this article. My point is that to go beyond the scope of what should be and is currently in the Jo Cox article, we would inevitably breach WP:BLPCRIME, therefore it is senseless to have the second article. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nope. Opening a merge proposal hours after an article was SNOW KEPT is highly disruptive and an obvious abuse of process. AusLondonder (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't know that since I nominate very few articles for deletion, so perhaps not such good advice after all. All we can do then is keep an eye on the article as it expands. One thing we haven't covered yet is the debate this has opened about the security of public figures. This is Paul (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for engaging in good faith in the debate Paul, even though I disagree with your conclusion on what should be done with the article. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the previous AfD was a snow keep and closed only hours ago. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can the nominator please elaborate on why he/she believes that the content in this article violates WP:BLPCRIME? Neutralitytalk 18:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy states: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN."

      The known facts surrounding the nature of Cox's death (that she was shot and stabbed in close proximity to a scheduled constituency surgery) are covered in Cox's article, as is the fact that a 52-year-old has been arrested. I'm not sure what else can be put into either article at this point which would not breach BLPCRIME? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • Looking at the page, I see no accusation from Wikipedia. That would indeed be improper. But nothing in WP:BLPCRIME, in my reading, prohibits us from naming an individual who has been arrested but not convicted, so long as high-quality reliable sources are reporting it, we give due weight within the scope of the article, and we frame the content in the appropriate manner (i.e., we recount what police or witnesses have said as reported by reliable third parties, and we don't ourselves in our own voice accuse the person). For example, it would violate BLPCRIME to identify an unconvicted person as "the perpetrator," or to state "they did it." But there is nothing wrong with identifying such a person as "the suspect" or "the arrested man." Indeed, that is what every British and American newspaper is now doing.
I heartily agree that, when it comes to crime, special caution and careful wording is required. I disagree, however, that such caution and care always requires outright exclusion of widely-reported information. I especially am alarmed at the suggestion that we should withhold such information for months or years on end pending trial. That is often not required by law or Wikipedia policy and would not serve our readers well. Neutralitytalk 18:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot call someone a suspect of a crime without suggesting that they committed a crime. Merely being a suspect is an accusation of potential wrongdoing, and we shouldn't be including this information on BLP grounds. The Suspect and Investigation sections don't belong until after a conviction is secured. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • That argument might hold, if the article were aimed at being covered in a NPOV, letting the facts speak for themselves way. Looking at the RM discussion on the talk page, it seems pretty unambiguous that there is no intention whatsoever of doing so (the page was called "murder" before and there seems to be consensus in the direction of "murder" or "assassination" now). I would also make the point that many of the editors ignoring BLPCRIME there are avoiding engaging in the discussion here (claiming that this matter has been discussed). I would further make the point that most of the more policy-conscious editors in this field are editing the subject's article. Now, I chose not to post a notification anywhere other than where was absolutely required for fear of being accused of notifying non-neutrally, therefore to my knowledge none has been posted to the talk page of Jo Cox. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Stand-alone notability is given per the last WP:AfD just hours ago. The alleged breaches of WP:BLPCRIME weren't substantiated at all, and things like the use of the terms "assassination" or "murder" may be further discussed on the Talk page. --PanchoS (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We've been through this once and the concensus was keep. Why are we going through it again?????? Davethorp (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there are a number of aspects on this incident that will likely still emerge and serve to expand it to being beyond what the victim's biography alone can carry. Particularly, there are the political implications and affect on the EU referendum; that this involved a firearm, very rare in British life; and the outcome in the local constituency. Radagast (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respect you for focussing on the merits nomination itself, even though I disagree with your conclusion. The point I'd make about the EU referendum is that a comment about the campaign suspension would already be justified in the main article (and is already present at Jo Cox. If this has a wider impact than a break in the two sides tearing lumps out of each other, that too would justify further coverage on the main referendum page. But you raise a valid point, and I respect it. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FDeath_of_Jo_Cox

Leave a Reply