User:Avillia/A Talk With A Cat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[21:52] <avillia> Good sir Schrodinger, a moment.
[21:54] <Schrodinger_Cat> Hello. I'm not especially busy currently, so you're free to more than a moment if you wish.
[21:55] <avillia> Oh, well then.
[21:55] <avillia> I present to you, in summary, my clever scheme.
[21:55] <avillia> Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aliza_Shvarts
[21:55] <avillia> Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seung-Hui_Cho_(2nd_nomination)
[21:55] <avillia> Wikipedia:Deletion_review
[21:55] <avillia> A formula for destruction, good sir?
[21:58] <Schrodinger_Cat> Hmmm. I can't say that I get it? What is the significance of the first entry?
[22:03] <avillia> My apologies.
[22:04] <avillia> I didn't realize freenode was filtering my damn pms under the joke name.
[22:04] <avillia> [21:59] <avillia_cat> The first entry is a AfD for Aliza Shvarts, a subject of recent attention due to her participation in a single event, her recent art project. It was deleted per BLP1E
[22:04] <avillia> [22:00] <avillia_cat> The second is, admittedly, a rather WP:POINT AfD filed regarding Seung-Hui Cho, the shooter at Virginia Tech. He rose to attention due to his participation in a single event. It was kept on the basis of obvious notability.
[22:04] <avillia> [22:01] <avillia_cat> There are a number of points illustrated by the observation of these two events, but the most relavant is the fact that there is clearly a common sense point at which a combination of A. notability, B. a subject's direct influence on series of events, C. the importance of that event (or events, as it were) requires an exception to WP:BLP1E.
[22:05] <avillia> [22:03] <avillia_cat> To describe the principle differently would be to say that articles which focus on a subject in the context of an event, and the factors in that subject's life which affected his participation in that event, rather than in the context of his life (a biographical article), should be allowed under the BLP policy for the sake of brevity.
[22:06] <avillia> fin.
[22:07] <Schrodinger_Cat> That is true. Indeed, bringing up Seng-Hui Cho on the same basis as Aliza Shvarts will stir up quite the controversy. The obvious difference is that Seng-Hui Cho was responsible for the worst mass shooting in modern American history.
[22:07] <avillia> Indeed.
[22:10] <avillia> Perhaps too dramatic a contrast. And yet, Wikipedia policy, particulary so a policy of such importance as BLP, should be able to be applied universally without elaboration.
[22:10] <Schrodinger_Cat> avillia: Actually, in light of that, I don't think your action will raise as much controversy as you hope. I mean, Aliza Shvarts didn't set any records.
[22:10] <avillia> The aim isn't so much controversy as to illustrate the fact that BLP1E is flawed.
[22:11] <avillia> If it is common sense that the notability of an event and the notability of a person within that event provides an exception to BLP1E, then BLP needs to reflect that.
[22:13] <avillia> And on the basis of notability, Miss Shvarts presents a case which, indeed, tests a multitude of rules. It is true, she has set no records, and yet the media seems eager to discuss her actions.
[22:13] <Schrodinger_Cat> Oh. That's true. If the event itself is notable, then the protagonists in that event are automatically notable.
[22:13] <avillia> And yet, BLP1E seems to contradict that logic.
[22:13] <Schrodinger_Cat> Yes.
[22:14] <avillia> You'd find that many of the sources which have discussed Miss Shvarts, combined, easily thrust a subject past the threshold of notability.
[22:15] <Schrodinger_Cat> avillia: Yes. That's true. Have you tried including all the sources in the article in order to make it *look* notable?
[22:16] <avillia> It is by no means of local or internet interest. While such personalities of both, such as the Yale Daily and Perez Hilton have discussed it, it's also been discussed by such luminaries as the Associated Press, the New York Times, Fox News, CNN, the Huffington Post, the Chicago Tribune...
[22:16] <avillia> Prior to it's deletion, yes, two or three of those sources were cited. While the rest have reported, their reports are, by and large, repetitive.
[22:18] <Schrodinger_Cat> avillia: They still should have been mentioned in the "references" section, even if they were never used in the article.
[22:19] <avillia> Regardless, referencing the Times, Fox, and ...I believe it was the Tribune? should easily be enough to establish notability.
[22:21] <Schrodinger_Cat> avillia: Yes. If it was mentioned in the Times, it ought to be notable. [22:22] <avillia> And thus we reach the present scenario.
[22:22] <avillia> Which seems best brought to attention by means of DRV.
[22:22] <avillia> No?
...(provided to avoid complaints regarding privacy vio)...
[22:28] <avillia> Mind if I throw the log about so as to save myself the trouble of repetition? [22:29] <avillia> There should be a comma in there, somewhere. Oh well.
[22:37] <Schrodinger_Cat> Not at all.
[22:37] <Schrodinger_Cat> avillia: However, I'd warn you that my opinion is hardly authoritative.
[22:37] <Schrodinger_Cat> I'm no wikilawyer.
[22:37] <avillia> It provides a fair starting point for such dialog, however.
...(following DRV post)...
[23:24] <Schrodinger_Cat> Yeah. I've been thinking a bit about this since our last conversation, and, I think I've found one other possible distinction. Seng Hui Cho's past influenced his actions in the Virginia Tech. shootings. Specifically, he had a history of mental illness, and was even hospitalized for it. Did Aliza Shvarts' past influence her controversial experiment?
[23:25] <avillia> Admittedly not to the extent of Mister Cho, but in many ways Miss Shvarts is a dwarf of him.
[23:26] <avillia> In the course of describing a subject's involvement in an event, we must also touch briefly on the characteristics which identify him --- DOB, name, et... and the characteristics which affected his participation in the event.
[23:27] <avillia> For Miss Shvarts, it was her previous participation in Yale art shows and various non-notable projects, generally dealing with menstruation.
[23:27] <avillia> For Mister Cho, it was his mental illness and hospitalization, which would be non-notable if not for the actions he committed following his return to society.
[23:28] <avillia> In fact, I don't think I'd be in error to say that it would be violating a good deal of patient privacy laws to discuss that illness if not for his public status and the fact the man's in a shallow grave.
