- Donald Trump's hair (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
Deleted as an attack page while an AfD was still on. Better thing to have done would have been to remove any attacks and let the AfD continue. pbp 20:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore article pending AfD and keep the current AfD running/relist. Deleting it per a questionable G10 when there were other options and when some editors thought that it was notable enough to be kept just muddies the water. I plan to keep my delete !vote at AfD, but I don't think speedy was the right way to go here at all because it was not clear cut, and anything that was unsourced could have been removed. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. I nominated the article for G10. To be clear, I wasn't trying to disrupt the very legitimate AfD, though I do believe this was an attack page so I felt obligated to report it. Despite its facially serious tone, the article was inherently overwhelmingly a vehicle to poke fun at and disparage a living person, and qualified for G10 per WP:ATTACK and WP:BLP. No amount of trimming would salvage it, in my view. WP:ATTACK isn't just for false/unverifiable information. It's also for pages that "exist primarily to disparage" their subjects, and the type of humor encapsulated by this page (and by the cited sources) was by and large about laughing at Trump, rather than laughing with him. All in good fun to be sure, but at Donald Trump's expense. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @DrFleischman: I think a better course of action would have been for you to say what you just said at the AfD. pbp 20:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, here and here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the warning put on Dr. Fleischman's user page is just a generic warning, and specifically says that it does not "imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date." My understanding is that all editors (or maybe new ones) working on articles in the relevant category get that warning. JasperTECH (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's try assuming good faith, Schmarrnintelligenz. I could just as well say you're simply retaliating since I just left you the same alert over a different matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore - Despite being on the "delete" side, I think this article should get a fair trial, and would not be an inherently insulting article in and of itself, even if it had anti-Trump POV problems. The hair gallery could have been removed, for instance. JasperTECH (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion When I first read the article, something just didn't sit right with me though I couldn't identify it. I concur that the article's purpose was to disparage Mr. Trump and his follicles, and thus meets the definition of an attack page. I would also note that as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, administrators are not allowed to restore the article without a clear consensus to do so, and the burden is on those who want it restored to demonstrate that it does not violate policy. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore and let the AfD run its course, even if I think it should be deleted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion and keep deleted, attack page on a BLP subject, and attack content should be removed on sight. Waiting an additional number of days would not be the right thing to do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Two weeks before the election? Get real. To whatever extent this was out of process, if any, WP:IAR applies for the rest. There is probably a valid article to be had on this topic once Trump concedes, which may never happen. Sounds like it would be a good idea to start from scratch. Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore and allow the process to be completed. I agree with most here that no need for a separate article was demonstrated, but I had thought the best result for this might end up being a selective merge to the existing section at Donald Trump, with the possibility of later creating a more focused article on something like Public image of Donald Trump (see Category:Public image of American politicians for similar articles). While there's always the risk of attack edits, I don't think the subject is inherently an attack topic. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore pending AfD. It is reasonably NPOV. To see it as an attack page requires assuming that anything discussing his personal characteristic must inherently be an attack, which semsabsurd. (I !voted to delete at the discussion, but that's not relevant here.) DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore and let the AfD discussion continue, please. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore pending AfD. I don't agree that this is an attack page, it's about as NPOV as such a thing could be. As others stated on the AfD, Trump himself frequently perpetuates interest by bringing it up on talk shows, rallies, and wrestling shows.LM2000 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't say I would have allowed for G10 deletion, but I cannot fault RHaworth for having done it. I believe, as I said on RHaworth's talk page, that this is kind of an attack page by proxy--I doubt it was created with much evil intent in mind, but the sourcing, these articles on Trump's hair, are tongue in cheek to say the least if not downright satirical at least in some cases, and thus the article, NPOV as it may be in its presentation of the material brought forth by the sources, is itself a kind of attack page. I am very sorry to disagree with DGG and other editors in whom I have great faith, but I do endorse this as within an administrator's discretion. What's more, the real-world triviality of the topic (let's get serious here) doesn't help the case for "regular" process, and while I never thought I'd be defending Trump against bodyshaming (I find it hard to type this very sentence), that's really what's going on here. The Hillary shimmy would be different--but this is negative, even if it is well-written and masked as NPOV.
To press the point a bit, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance says, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints", and it's pretty clear (to me, anyway) that Trump's hair is discussed only, or predominantly, by those with a particular viewpoint. So arguing that this is a BLP violation dangerously close to a page that is "negative in tone" (from the G10 rationale) is not crazy. RHaworth stuck their neck out, and I endorse their action, in the spirit of what I think the BLP should do. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore AfD There's no basis for speedy delete under any of the tests of G10. Trump proudly draws attention to his own hair. He's joked about it and invited supporters to grab and pull it at rallies. He refers to it often. The two deletions were really off-base. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- QUESTION How on earth can an article specifically calling negative attention to a single body part of a living person possibly NOT be an attack page? I'm really baffled by the logic here. An article on, say, Rosie O'Donnell's fat rolls would be (quite rightly) deleted within seconds, no AFD needed. Most of us aren't Trump fans here on Wikipedia and while it's fine to hold and vocalise that opinion, it's another thing entirely to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack, shame, and belittle a living person, even one we don't necessarily admire. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's creator clearly did not see it as an attack page, even accusing those of us who think it should be deleted as demonstrating an anti-Trump bias [1]. I recognize a page has implications beyond the what the creator intended, but I don't see this page as meeting the description in WP:ATTACK. The intent of the article creator has to be taken into account here, and by all her statements, she seems to be if anything pro-Trump (my extrapolation from the bias claim.) I fully support the deletion of this article because it is probably the most ridiculous thing i have ever seen on Wikipedia, but I don't think it is an attack page. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno how much weight we can place on the creator's say-so though. The typical response getting caught doing anything wrong is simple denial. For example, every spammer insists their spam isn't spam, even when it quite obviously is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but the diff I cited sounds too much like "it's rigged" for me to think she created the article to disparage Trump. In the end, I hope this article gets deleted, but I'd hate it if Wiki somehow becomes part of the lamestream media and gave more people on and off Wiki excuse to complain, which is a large part of why I think the G10 was a bad idea. It's at best borderline G10, and I think letting it play out at AfD is best, especially with there being a fair amount of support for keeping it there before the CSD tag was placed. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Listen, I'm as process oriented as anyone. And I'm no Trump supporter. And maybe, in the fullness of time, we'll have this article. But we have a short-term problem and our regular-speed processes aren't going to deal with it. Just like we deleted Michelle Obama's Arms as an article, this too needs to go. And given the timeframe of the election, it needs to go now. It's a questionable G10 from what I can see, but given the situation I think it's the right one, at least until the election is over. Hobit (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TROUT the speedy deleting admins. Looking at the cached copy, it was not even close to WP:CSD#G10, and it was not in violation of WP:BLP. It was arguably ridiculous, or in Wikipedia-jargon, a gross WP:DUE violation. Appropriate coverage exists at Donald_Trump#Hair, and the bold spinout is not justified by any talk page discussion, Talk:Donald_Trump#Donald_Trump.27s_hair is clearly not consensus in support. Administrators should be more conservative in using administrator privileges to trump ongoing community discussion. The AfD should be allowed to run its course, but in my opinion the AfD is ready for immediate close of something between "delete" and "merge and redirect to Donald_Trump#Hair. I think there is no BLP of G10 reason to delete the history, WP:UNDUE versions are tolerated in page histories, and some of it might be relevant to a hypothetical new proposal at Talk:Donald_Trump in favour of a spinout. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn speedy because "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases."[2] and to ignore this rule is an abuse of administrative discretion. Thincat (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per WP:IAR and relist after election day. This is a political matter and Wikipedia needs to rise above it. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
