Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Rachel Corrie#Reactions, on 22 March 2009, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie. Over a month has gone by. Closing this second, superfluous, inappropriate, Afd as a formality. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie[edit]

Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie was closed on March 22nd with a decision to merge to Rachel Corrie. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 16, the decision was endorsed. Attempts to force merger were disputed here and here. Since the article was moved to this new title, people claim that it deserves a second hearing (a second DRV seems nonsensical so a second AFD). In my mind, these changes clearly aren't an attempt to merge and don't look like an attempt at a new article. Suggest deletion and mean it this time. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Hideous Act Involved As the User Implied Above If I left the page as it is and create a new page, actually only that would be deceitful and cheating. I moved the page, and created a title in the main discussion page, letting other editors know what I am doing. That is how you or anyone else learned it already. If I didn't move the page with new content, and just create a new page, near noone would know it.
I let other users know what I was doing publicly in main discussion page, so I wasn't trying to hide anything from anyone in the first place. You try a bit hard on trying to make me seem bad, yet at original deletion talk Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie majority of votes was in favor of creating a new Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie page, including 2 of the dedicated page editors, along with some other editors, admins advised me the same. I may know rules more or less, but that was exactly what I was trying to do. The article still needs a lot wikifying, yet that work belongs to all main page editors too, not only me, and without collaborative work it cannot be accomplished. While the new article is still in progress, you and another editor acted so swift on getting it deleted without discussing with me, before even the article gets shaped by other editors. Kasaalan (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reduce and merge. A lot of the material is unnecessary detail, and replicates material in the articles about the plays or that is already in her main article. What is useful and unique can be merged into Rachel Corrie. Fences and windows (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all main idea behind creating page is collecting relevant info in detail in sub page, and clearing out the main page from some of the content in a summary style. But if no colloborative help come on the article, it takes time to do such extensive work, also I cannot do that without consent of the main page. Kasaalan (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it a little difficult to claim when you are reverting every attempt to cut text out? Summarizing does include removing text as well as adding, correct? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added text into public reactions page, when the article gets complete, then info from the main article could be summarized. I hadn't done any summarizing job yet, I couldn't even complete the article fully. Main article is building consensus and work of many editors, not only me.
Again accusing talk, but which edits you refer to. Lots of editors helped on minor parts. Some others try to take out big context with wrong claims. Only undo I did were removal of a site that contains memorial poems, Patti Smith's criticizing quote on Israel's cluster bomb usage claiming they are not relevant, yet they were related directly. Another edit I undid was removing the complete title "Requiem for Rachel Corrie (Mioritza)" along with its whole context with no explanation, I may be right or wrong, yet "when you are reverting every attempt to cut text out" is obviously not true, can you prove your accusations first, so I can reply them more clearly. Actually I need a lot of help by other users, especially for wikifying the article. Kasaalan (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to this comment, "Patti Smith's criticizing quote on Israel's cluster bomb usage" is completely irrelevent to an article supposed to be about reactions to Rachel's death, and merely supports my view that this article is a coatrack for anti-Israel propaganda. Somno (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Moving a page is not the way to escape the conclusion of a reviewed AfD. Bongomatic 23:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Hideous Act Involved As the User Implied Above I replied above on moving page. The user tries to build a prejudice on me, by implying I was doing hideous acts. That is on the contrary. In deletion review majority of votes in favor of either keeping the page, or creating a new title. So I tried to create a new title, trying to include parts missing as I advised and criticized on the deletion talk. Kasaalan (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
You seemed to have had a distinct habit of reverting attempt after attempt after attempt after attempt to get the page cut down in any manner for a merger. Add in serious bad faith here (even if not to me in particular) and even though you have notified everyone at Talk:Rachel Corrie about each step, to claim we must still wait for "devoted editors", ignoring the actual discussion there, the implications aren't difficult to see. I hate to resort to silly ad hominems as well, but your user page indicates at least a little bias. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that last part. That was out of line. I didn't mean to imply anything by the page moves (there were just minor changes clearly), but if it's another redirect, I hope the closing admin considers figuring out some way to clear that up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have only edited the article 2 times in its entire history. Also you only barely contributed to the article discussions, and I have serious doubts if you have ever read the article completely even once. But since you haven't spent much time on editing the article, research or talk page discussions, it may not be your fault to don't know who I meant. There are some devoted editors of the page, who spent their recent months with discussing and improving the article to its current level. Between December 2008 and March 2009, especially Arimareiji, Ironduke, PR, Untwirl, NSH001, Wehwalt, Tiamut and me had various weeks long debates over various issue for improving the article, who also put their effort in editing, one way or another according to their own approach. Of course there are other editors but these are the most active ones in recent 6 months. Kasaalan (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about accusations, as long as I reply them nothing is out of line, yet they simply not proves any bad faith at all. If I had bad faith I would do other way around actually. First of all let me clear one part, my edits was not meant to be a merge to main page at all. I didn't ignore AFD, just tried to act accordingly. That was the whole point of creating a new page. I just try to follow a consensus, and a compromising approach with others' thoughts. Redirects are easy to handle, but creating a page, or merging it takes a lot of work and discussion. Kasaalan (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responded on your talk page. This probably isn't appropriate here, but like I said before, given that your reversions of any edit by anyone else all with the merge notice on the top of the page (after the DRV too), I don't find your claim that you weren't just ignoring the AFD serious. Also, you've spent months arguing that you want the editors you approve to edit the article and they just don't seem interested. At some point, other people's views matter too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even you voted otherwise, you stated some opinions in deletion talk that might be considered in favor of creating a new public reactions page. That was while I was creating the new page, I assumed it was a general consensus including even yours. I wasn't ignoring AFD, I defended the article should be stay as a standalone article, the verdict was merge, but near all of the editors suggested, a new public reactions page is possible including deletion and deletion review admins, and 2 of the active editors.
I don't know the rules much, but before the merge done, I felt redirecting was not right. Yes noone did the merging, but it requires hard and more than 1 editor work. The redirector, just happened to do that after a short while of my edits in another page. There is nothing called editors I approved, I included the most active editors from various and opposing views of mine and each other in the main article page. But again if you haven't read the previous 6 month discussions I referred, you may not know. Kasaalan (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except you didn't edit the main article (other than this and this revert) to include any content. You were adding content to this one. You both reverted people's attempt to work on the main article, and you reverted people's attempts to work on this article. As I said at the prior AFD, I didn't think the separate article was necessary and just a straight redirect make sense, as did the admin who closed the AFD and one other. I'm excluding the admin who enacted the protection to keep it redirected. At the same time, I undid my own redirect and opened it up for another AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you count 75 as 2, but I have done more than 75 edits, Rachel Corrie page history, as you can clearly see. Even multiple times more research, and discussion talk of 3-4 archive page length. It is clear that, you making these false claims, because you didn't participated in the discussions or editing of the main page. Kasaalan (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Reduce and Merge per User:Fences and windows.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge the material from the deleted article here and keep, possibly under a modified title. I think it would be well to have this second article.; there is enough material. DGG (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - actually, this article seems acceptable to me. A merge would be possible, but Rachel Corrie is already a long article with an extensive 'reactions' section; so, a spin-off article like this one might be justified. It's certainly very comprehensive, although it does duplicate some information already in the Rachel Corrie article; I'd actually recommend merging some content from that article into this one, rather than the other way around. Robofish (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I count only 3 deletes in the previous AfD and 1 merge (Not to mention 5 keeps). Two of the users who voted delete complained about the article not being balanced. Kasaalan has addressed this issue by adding incidents of negative reactions. Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All that may be true, but this would not seem to be the appropriate venue for addressing these points. DRV upheld the deletion. Bongomatic 09:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Just checked the DRV page. Noticed on the same page, right on top of this article, a closed DRV for the kept List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck". Yeah, I am going to rely on DRV participants to make the right decisions. Um no. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion review is merely about reviewing if an admin closed an AFD correctly; it is not about whether articles should be kept or deleted. The AFD in question for that article does show a clear consensus to keep, so the DRV participants did judge that correctly and your point is irrelevant. Somno (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrevelant to you because you are missing the point. My point isn't about "other stuff exists", it is about whether or not DRV results are useful for reevaluating an article for deletion or inclusion. Again you only strengthened my point about the use of DRV results by pointing out the purpose of the DRV. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, results at DRV are useful - e.g. for showing the result of the AFD about the previous article with largely the same content was "merge", and it was a valid result. It has not been shown why that decision, which was reached through consensus and found to be accurately interpreted at DRV, is suddenly now wrong and the article warrants keeping. Nothing has changed, aside from a couple of token additions to supposedly address bias. Somno (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you believe those voting in DRVs do not review the article (if kept) or whether the subject warrants an article, but instead are just reviewing the admin's judgment, on whether s/he acted correctly on the AfD's votes? If this is how a DRV is run, then your claim only strengthens my point that results of DRVs should not be taken into consideration. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a matter of what I "believe"; Deletion Review's purpose is clearly stated at the DRV page: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly". Whether an article should exist is determined at AFD. The original AFD determined that the spin-off article should be merged with the original article, and the DRV confirmed that the decision was correct. So yes, your off-topic point that other stuff exists is irrelevant to the debate here. Somno (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would urge, indeed beg, all editors to read policies before quoting them. I quote WP:NOTNEWS in full:Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Furthermore, Wikipedia articles should not list frequently asked questions (FAQs). Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). See also: Wikipedia:News articles Not relevant. Fences and windows (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there a closing time of this voting. Kasaalan (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. Kasaalan (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A significant enough topic for an article. This shouldn't really be contentious. Ian Pitchford (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is clearly a notable and significant topic, with much relevant material. It would be inappropriate to merge this into Rachel Corrie, since that would unbalance the article. RolandR (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is Articles for Deletion which, per WP:BEFORE, is only for hopeless cases, not huge articles on notable topics with dozens of sources. Please take it to Mergers for Discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Relevant stuff already at main article so merger not necessary. --Anarchodin (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My vote is keep, as presumed, yet if some of the more experienced editors of the main page help, the quality of the article will be apparently higher. Kasaalan (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only issue with have to analyse concerns the wikipedia rules. For what concerns deletion, the question is : "is the topic relevant ?". With the high numbers of sources that are provided and given the big size of the article when nothing in it that seems not required, I think the answer is "yes". I also wonder where it is between B and GA class... Ceedjee (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In relation to the Good article criteria, in my humble opinion it fails 1b) because lists aren't incorporated; 2b) because many unreliable sources are used (especially primary sources); 2c) because much of it is original research (e.g. which songs are "notable"); 3b) because the detail is excessive; 4) because it is a biased coatrack; and 5) because there is obviously an ongoing content dispute or this AFD wouldn't exist. So I'd say it's a long way from GA. Somno (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it fails GA, it is because the GA focuses on lists and not articles, not because the article would not be good. Let's rather say Wikipedia:Featured lists then. Ceedjee (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Rachel Corrie article already discusses the subject of these "reactions" at greater length than is necessary. We already know that her death was a very sad event, and a separate article cataloging every theatrical production or song by minor artists that have been written on the subject, adds nothing. In fact I think that the content of this article is what should constitute a trivia section of the Rachel Corrie article, and that WP:TRIVIA applies. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have listened near every song in that list except 1 or 2, and I can clearly say there is no minor artist in the list, maybe some artists local and not-so-famous over the world or don't have wikipedia pages, but the notability isn't limited to being famous. For example, The Gram Partisans, and The Zachary Jones band are not so famous, yet they have 2 of the best songs of the list exceptionally high quality, that are even publicly available for free. So claiming them minor is not true. Also most of the songs even have a place in itunes store, so they did not come out of nowhere. The notability should be more relevant to the quality of work, than being famous. Kasaalan (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are rules on primary sources versus secondary specifically because we can arguments forever about this exact sort of thing. Generally, I assume we go above mere existence. Like I said in the last AFD, a link to the iTunes music store searching for "Rachel Corrie" shouldn't be how we determine notability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the references, you can see there is no doubt the songs exist, for most of the sources I used more references. Itunes store used mostly for proving track length and some other details, along with commercial availability of the songs. Kasaalan (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should discuss this elsewhere, but like I said before, I don't doubt the songs exists. I'm not challenging you on that. However, not everything that merely exists belongs here. There has to be a bit more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I am sorry, Kasaalan, but you are not (as far as I know) a WP:reliable source to determine the level of notability of these artists. But even if every artist was as famous as George Gershwin and Tennessee Williams, it would still constitute nothing more than WP:trivia: ie a "list of miscellaneous facts". I note that you wrote, above, "I have listened near every song in that list". That is exactly the problem. In most cases such lists are deleted from articles; but you, instead, elevated this list to its own article. That was not a good idea. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not all list sections are trivia sections Main article: Wikipedia:Embedded list

In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information.
Also there is even a Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates that even lists List of United States Military Academy alumni (Superintendents) or List of New Jersey County Colleges.
The main reason the song listing is not trivia is over 6 years more than 30 artist-groups wrote songs for Rachel Corrie, because they support her actions, and share her political beliefs or feel bad over her tragic death. Writing a song, is one of the best ways of expressing a public reaction, like a painting. Won't you add Guernica_(painting) painting of Picasso for the Bombing of Guernica#Picasso's Painting article. It is easy to understand that when you read the lyrics. This is a major part of the article, that cannot be considered as trivia. Kasaalan (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" exists as an article, which I support keeping too. Yet why a much more important, and reliable table of the tribute songs, should be deleted. Kasaalan (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the article isn't "List of songs that support Rachel Corrie." It's supposed to be about the public reaction to her, and just listing every single thing that mentions her isn't a general article about the reaction but a mere list. There must be some attempt at summarizing information. The issue is we don't have that many secondary sources (i.e. someone NOT the artist or related to the cause) describing the general view of music supporting her. There's plenty of sources of that type at the main article, not here. The Guernica article links to a secondary source, PBS in this case, that is discussing the painting and its relationship. You are arguing that our personal views should be the determination of what's included and that's just not feasible. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. Rachel Corrie is notable. Some of the items listed in the Public reactions article are definitely notable. However, most of it is just trivial information, which would be great on a personal website or Rachel Corrie tribute site, but not in an encyclopedia. For example, is it notable that Lorcan "Larry" Otway wrote two songs about Rachel? No. Who cares if Holly Gwinn Graham wrote a song? Lyra and Friends? I Can Lick Any Sonofabitch in the House? These songs and artists are not notable in any way and are the songs are not mentioned in independent, reliable sources. That they are for sale in iTunes or mentioned on the artist's website is irrelevant – they are not third-party sources that establish any notability for the songs. That they are important and great songs in Kasaalan's view (and they might be great songs; I haven't listened to the songs so I'm judging on encyclopedic importance alone, not my personal opinion of the music), does not influence whether they should be mentioned in the encyclopedia. The poems and memorial cards are also trivial. Then there are other problems with the article, such as the huge rehashing of the article for The Skies are Weeping and the repetition in the Notes section. These problems can be fixed, but they are representative of the larger issues – that "there is too much information to be incorporated in the main article" is false. There is too much irrelevant, non-notable information to be incorporated into the main article, but if only the notable information was mentioned in the main article, there would not be an issue. The token representation in this article of a few "negative" items is just that – token representation in the hope the article's bias will be overlooked. Like the previous AFD determined, this article is still a POV pro-Rachel fork. Rachel's death is sad, and her life is notable. However, Wikipedia is not a Rachel fansite. Somno (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually your arguments are false, being notable and being famous are totally different, as mentioned in relevant wiki guidelines. Not having a wiki article, does not mean anything but users haven't created one yet. Lorcan "Larry" Otway, I Can Lick Any Sonofabitch in the House or any other singers-groups in the list are professional musicians, that produce CDs for music market, that is enough to be mentioned in the article with a 1 line. They don't consume much space than that anyway. The most certain public reaction over a death, is creating a song, which is relevant to the title. Kasaalan (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list of songs in memoriam of Rachel Corrie cannot be considered as POV in any way, also a simple list that don't have any arguments let alone POV ones, cannot be referred as biased. Your arguments isn't even near the truths. Kasaalan (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your application of WP:NM here. An article mentioning non-notable figures isn't a criterion of deletion, at least not indicated in that guideline you cited. If the subject of the article is not notable, then WP:Notability comes into play. But as you said Rachel Corrie is notable. Furthermore, the notion that the existence of this article means Wikipedia is a Rachel fansite is absurd and worst case logical fallacy. Please avoid it for future debates. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
  • Rachel is notable. Every small fact ever remotely associated with Rachel is not notable, and that's the difference. Of course the article's existence doesn't mean Wikipedia is a Rachel fansite (that would be absurd), but the obsessively-detailed level of content in the article would only be suitable for a Rachel fansite, not an encyclopedia. Somno (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, there is no restriction against mentioning everything there is to know about a subject. The subject is Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie, naturally it is going to include all known incidents of public reaction. The argument that this articles covers everything related to this subject is a particulary weak if not counterproductive argument for deletion. Find a new one --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I'm familiar with Wikipedia policies. There is a restriction against mentioning every tiny thing in an encyclopedia - it's called common sense, but in a Wikipedia guideline and policy sense, it also involves undue weight, avoiding trivia, and most importantly, verifying information through independent, reliable sources. The fact that you are only attempting to rebuff one part of my argument does not mean that only one part exists. I have stated my reasons for deletion, and they're there for the closing admin to evaluate. Somno (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Here is a featured list article : List of Kylie Minogue concert tours. All the arguments you have given would lead to its deletion : the level of sources are the same and no concert is notable by itself. That is just the way list topics are dealts that must be considered different as the way usual articles are. Ceedjee (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't a list. It's supposed to be a split from the Reactions section of an article. Shouldn't it then be more akin to an article than a list? If people want a straight list, call it "List of songs attributed to Rachel Corrie" and do whatever you want. Besides, isn't all this a discussion for the article talk page afterwards anyways? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. All "lists" don't have the word "list" in the name of the article.
anyway, the title could be "list of the public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie".
Ceedjee (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is they categorically try to erase complete article, first they say the list is not relevant, then they say delete that list because it is not relevant, then they will possibly say there is not much info in this article so merge it into main article. Kasaalan (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Falastine wrote: "Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies". Falastine, which WP policy are you referring to? It is usual, when citing a WP policy, to name it, and to give a link to it. For example, when I said the article has obvious problems with WP:TRIVIA , and gave a quote: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." General statements about what you happen to think is WP policy is not convincing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC
My point is there is NO restriction supported by policy against having detailed content containing everything known about the subject. Somno's claim that articles cannot contain non-notable people, incidents, and items is not backed up by policy. I disagree with the application of WP:undue as well, since WP:Undue applies to viewpoints and giving each viewpoint their proportionate due. I don't see a convincing argument as to how this applies to the article. Why you brought up WP:Trivia is beyond me. The quote you cited is counteractive to your point. Micellaneous facts means that they don't have a place in any of the important sections (Biography, history, origin, etc.) and thus are grouped together in a trivia section. With that being said, it would be clearly ridiculous to suggest that Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie is a list of miscellaneous facts because the reactions are obviously the focal point of the article. I ask you to seriously familiarize yourself with WP:Trivia before bringing it up again for future debates. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original content of this article was what amounted to a trivia section of the Rachel Corrie article. Making that into its own article is absurd. WP:Trivia certainly applies. Moreover the name of the article is a deception because the "public reactions" to her death was covered by the news media. This article is just a list of non-notable individuals in the performing arts who wrote non-notable plays and non-notable songs about a girl who is notable only for her death. This article just collects these non-notables into a list, a list of non-notables in the performing arts who have seized on the sad event of this girl's much publicized death in the hope that it was something bankable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, as you should know already, the previous article was called Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie, but a new name was chosen to reflect an article that now contains negative incidents. Request a move if you have a problem with the title. The only thing of WP:trivia that applies here is Wikipedia:Trivia#Not all list sections are trivia sections: "a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." Obviously the incidents are under one narrow theme. Refer to real trivia sections to get a sense as to what trivia sections really are. Your allegation against the artists is pointless. Leave it out. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Second choice is merge. This is a POV fork, plain and simple. Corrie has borderline notability because of one event. Wikipedia is not a place to report on the coverage of her death. This was already decided in an AfD and I don't see why we have to go through it all over again because a POV edit warrior refuses to accept the result of the first AfD. Enigmamsg 18:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only some users claimed it was a POV fork, most of the article only holds collected facts, which can only be considered as neutral. Kasaalan (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
  • Comment I assume it is called "Other stuff exists" and not any swear word. Second yes there are other pages exist does not help always, yet since other pages exist strongly under same policies, it is hard to believe the same rules applied to some particular pages but not to others. Kasaalan (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kylie Minogue and her tours are notable, as has been shown by multiple independent, reliable sources. You are comparing an article that lists (primarily) redlinked songs by self-published artists to an article that lists massive concert tours (Kylie's 2008 tour sold over 400,000 tickets) by a successful solo artist (aside from the millions of CDs and all the number one songs, she's been awarded an Order of the British Empire and Ordre des Arts et des Lettres for her services to music). I'm not sure why you are comparing the two articles Ceedjee. Kasaalan, it is not clear that you can create a "list of songs about Rachel Corrie" - it being used as an example does not equal an endorsement. Somno (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me state your comparison is wrong. Do Kylie Minogue has any tribute song to her name or beliefs, no. Do Rachel Corrie has yes over 30. Why Patti Smith did not make any song over Kylie Minogue or dedicated to her you assume. Even though Rachel Corrie is multiple times less famous then Kylie Minogue, she has a more notable political life and thoughts, and that is why over 30 songs dedicated to her internationally, by title and context, including world famous and not that famous artists. Kasaalan (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "reaction to the death of Rachel Corrie" is a notable topic. Else, it would not be developed in a section of the article about Rachel Corrie !
Anyway, you compare Kylie Minogue to Rachel Corrie. That is not the point.
You have already admitted Rachel Corrie was notable here above.
All people interested by the Israeli Palestinian conflict will always be more interested by "the public reaction to the death of Rachel Corrie" than by the "tours of Kylie Minogue". That is the point. And this last one is a Featured List. So, there is no problem to keep this one that concerns Rachel Corrie.
Ceedjee (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A naked woman can get more attention then john lennon, if you only count the search results, or wide media coverage. But you cannot compare their works.
For this case it is a big deal more than 30 songs made on Rachel Corrie. I am not aware of anyone who recently lived has so many tribute songs on them.
Again notability comes from the quality of the song, the text the tune the producing, self publishing is an interesting claim all the artists in the table are professional musicians one way or another, lots of the artists mentioned are widely known internationally or locally like Patti Smith, yet some rest only gets 5 k page result when searched in google, but not 5 like they self published any song. Yet only expecting search results or widely known media to cover anything is a serious mistake. Though if you like to challenge the artists 1 by 1, I will also post reliable links for them 1 by 1. Since I only used the song references in table for particular info like track length or album name, there are even more sources for the artists' notability or background. Kasaalan (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also other pages exist may not be a term, yet lots and lots of other pages exist actually is, because it somehow shows the guidelines not applied as you claim to those articles by other users then you. So even Characters in Beowulf book deserves their own seperate pages, yet a collective list of dedicated songs to a notable person do not deserve a single page you claim, but that is not true. Kasaalan (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Rachel Corrie is not notable just because how she died, she is also notable because how she lived. And her own writings. If that would be the case, anyone got killed by IDF should have same attention worldwide, but that is not the case. Kasaalan (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is disputing whether Carrie is notable herself. That's clear. But Notability isn't inherited. She's notable and has an article. But every song about her isn't automatically notable simply because it's about her. That's not a standard anybody follows here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a very good point. Can those who are using the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument please stop distracting from the article being discussed here - there is no article similar to this that I am aware of, about someone who was tragically killed and notable due to the subsequent controversy (I can only think of people who were well known before their death, but I've probably forgotten others), so OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is even less relevant than it usually is. Why do these tributes deserve their own article? Why can't the important ones be covered inside the main article and the rest left for fan and memorial websites? Not every detail remotely related to someone is notable (Falastine, before you repeat your argument that there's no such policy, it's common sense and consensus shown elsewhere. We don't mention a notable person's favourite songs, childhood friends, college subjects, etc, unless directly relevant; we don't mention every book ever written about someone's life, every artist that's ever performed a cover version of a song, etc - we draw the line at the most important information to keep articles neutral, relevant, verifiable and non-trivial.) Somno (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply You say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not relevant because other similar manner articles not proves anything, but you also say it is "it's common sense and consensus shown elsewhere." If it is common sense shown elsewhere how lots of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in the first place. I say lots of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS simply because you claim it is against wiki guidelines and policies to create such a page. Yet even Characters of Beowulf book deserves their own seperate pages, yet a collective list of dedicated songs to a notable person do not deserve a single page you claim.
  • In the Notability isn't inherited guideline it refers "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums."
  • Moreover Notability isn't inherited is about creating a seperate page for every detail related to a notable figure. But in this case we are not advocating seperate article for each song, but a table of collective songs. There is a huge difference between these terms. Kasaalan (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: I had some concerns about canvassing as noted here. Nothing was settled, but I hope we can avoid repeating that discussion here, so I'm asking everyone else to just let me put this notification out there and leave it be. I'd rather have the closing admin know now rather than have an argument for DRV. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well. Of course this is a good reason for a future DRV given you didn't warn the other editors of your actions and it seems to me particularly uncivil not to have warned me given what your write on that page. For your information, but you could have asked me. I simply voted and argued strongly for to keep this article the first time it was deleted because I know the topic. But I am far to be on the keep side of the pov, given my mind, as any pro-Israeli, is that thas women is fully responsible of what happened to her. That is just a question of double standards not to apply. Ceedjee (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue wasn't you. The issue was someone notifying you, when you weren't involved in the article nor in the prior deletion discussions and why. There are policies in place because of concerns stemming from that. It's not typical for people to just randomly notify individuals who weren't at all involved in the article before and notify them about discussions. Maybe that doesn't concern you but it is an issue, especially with controversial articles. So you wanted me to warn you that someone else would bring up votestacking and I would ask about you? You are supposed to know why he would notify you? Kasaalan was fairly clear from the last AFD that he wasn't in any mood to talk with me without being completely accusatory, and what good would that do since I would have been there anyway. I informed him of the discussion. I asked outsiders for their views, since I don't edit here but I know the Arbitration Committee has some rules about this topic. Whatever, can we just drop it here and if you want to discuss it, go to that noticeboard where it belongs? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He stated
That's all I want. The discussion there seems somewhat settled anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ricky as I previously asked to you numerous times, can you possibly tell here publicly, if you have fully read the 2 articles yet, or still speculating without reading them fully. You have lots of clear false arguments, like number of my edits being 2 which are actually over 75, as I clearly proved wrong because you didn't read discussions and not familiar with content or edit history. You made no effort on discussing your concerns with other main page editors or with me, or attempted any improvement in the article before you nominated it for deletion. You also known I asked the single member that replied me back to read the articles before voting, because I don't want any politic vote.
Also if you were right about "your might-be-canvas-concern" I should have also left invitation for overturn keep voter if I had vote-in-the-bag approach. Why do you think I didn't do that. I posted messages on active project and main page editors, along with public announcements. But I will copy Alansohn's overturn reason from previous deletion review.
Overturn Deep down inside, before I saw the details, my personal political biases on the subject were assuming that this couldn't possibly merit a standalone article; This had to be a blatantly POV fork. In reviewing the article under discussion, I see clear encyclopedic handling of a topic that has received far more media coverage than I ever realized, providing several dozen reliable and verifiable sources to support the material in the article. In looking at the parent article, there is a section on tributes, and a merge would largely overwhelm the parent article. This is exactly what forks are for. The consensus in the AfD was extremely muddled, and while there were calls for a merge, there seems to be no way that the results of the AfD could have been read to support any one result, and least of all merge. I would suggest using a lower case "t" in the second word of the title. Alansohn
Moreover if you really bother to do a search, you can easily see I picked the editors to be noted, from project and main page discussions, not from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie keep voters, if that would be the case, I would also notify alanshon, mgm or yamanam. You make every effort to spread your concerns everywhere systematically, and how do you expect me to not discuss it here.
I wanted this case to be discussed, by help of relevant editors, which are active main and project page editors apparently. Some dedicated delete or keep voters won't help the discussion anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm going to discuss this at ANI. This is diving further into personal issues, and I admit largely my fault. However, let me see if a neutral admin would have some ideas to keep this sensible. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not right to discuss a page's existence with only afd watchers, and simply putting a link in the discussion page didn't lead much discussion about the content last time, but generally a keep or delete voting. I actually even suggest we should put a disclaimer in the main page. Kasaalan (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded here and to put it bluntly: if you want to change the entire AFD policy to one where the AFD is only legitimate when you decide, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is that way. Put whatever disclaimers you want on this page. The closing admin should rightly ignore all of them, and you can bring it up to DRV and argue these same points for a fourth time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is better to decide the existence of an article with afd watcher, and relevant editors from different parties together. Kasaalan (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - not notable enough for its own article, IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep and edit. this article needs editing and trimming, but it is obviously notable ("has received significant coverage in reliable sources.") untwirl(talk) 14:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unanswered questions In the Notability isn't inherited guideline it refers "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums." Am I getting it wrong, but the policies you push telling on contrary of your own claims. Kasaalan (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Delete/Merge While interesting this topic does not deserve its own article. It can easily be merged into the main article. Basket of Puppies 16:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as recreation of an article decided to merge following a contentious debate. It's too soon to revisit the previous debate. This is nothing but an attempt to circumvent WP:DRV with more canvassing. RayTalk 16:41, 7 May 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Public_reactions_to_death_of_Rachel_Corrie&oldid=1086361916"