- Celebrity nude photo leaks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Black Kite gave a G10 justification for the list article after it came up at BLPN. The subject matter is easily sourced across both journalism and academia. I think this is a willful misread of G10, especially in light of the deleting admin asserting that their most important justification for deletion was that they don't want Wikipedia "hosting unpleasant misogyny". While better sources need to be found for the article I see nothing about the subject matter that is inherently G10. This is a substantive subject, easily sourced, that is not itself a copyvio. This should go to AfD, not be, to borrow the deleting admin's term, "nuked" because they don't like it. GraniteSand (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC) GraniteSand (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Call it whatever you want, but with sourcing like (REDACTED) (that link is NSFW and inappropriate), I for one am not weeping over this going away. I'll go trout Black Kite for not inventing CSD#G99: Completely inappropriate material that needs to be nuked pronto before he deleted, and then give them a barnstar for IAR of the month. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The deleted article is now suppressed. If you want to write an article on celebrity nude leaks without linking to them, you can go ahead and try. But making Wikipedia host to even links to such content is completely unacceptable. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)The subject's worth having an article, about, sure; but this wasn't one. It was a list of celebrities who'd had photos leaked, with secondary-in-name-only sources, some of which in turn linked to the photos. Appropriate G10 deletion. Endorse. —Cryptic 02:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Nothing anyone has said about the article that was deleted makes me think that a proper article on this subject wouldn't be faster written by starting from scratch. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I guess I'll be the creep that does that. Consider my objection withdrawn. GraniteSand (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We've already got Imagery of nude celebrities; think this is worth a redirect? —Cryptic 02:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the wide legal and cultural impact that unauthorized leaks of celebrity nude photos/videos have had and the expansive coverage the topic has had I would say it will survive as an article. I guess we'll see. GraniteSand (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just from the first page of results for Jennifer Lawrence, the most recent "big" leak victim, which discuss legal, technological, and cultural implications:[1][2][3][4]. The topic has received coverage that is general, topical, and biographical in relevance. GraniteSand (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why an article on that leak exists. Most leaks, however, aren't notable; and an article which is a big long list of non-notable events is, by definition, non-notable (WP:LISTN). Quite apart from the BLP issues, of course. Black Kite (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore, and discuss at AfD. I personally do not think we should have this sort of material,and that the page on the leak is sufficient. But this is a question of NOT NEWS, and that criterion is not a speedy criterion, but requires community discussion. I think it's really stretching it to call it G10, "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose" Alternatively, this could be seen as a BLP content dispute, with the question being whether this should be a separate article or included there or not included at all. The argument there for deleting it would be excessive weight and general unfairness under BLP,and there tooI would probably argue that we should not have this sort of material, , The use of iAR would be only justified if there is no other way to deal with it, and if all reasonable people would agree. blanking follow by an afd would have dealt with it. As for the use of suppression, according to WP:Suppression policy,"Complaints or inquiries about potential misuse of the oversighter flag should be referred to the Audit Subcommittee," a group of which I am not a member. If I were, I would not be commenting here at all . In short, I would like it deleted, but I do not decide speedies according to what I would like, but according to policy. DGG ( talk ) 08:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The article can't be restored in the state it was deleted, for reasons mentioned above. I suppose we could restore the text without the links, but that's obviously not massively useful in terms of discussing notability. Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is easily found at the google webcache. I only checked a few links, but they are not links to the alluded images. They are, however, links to primary sources about the individual links, and are not sources for the general subject of celbrity nude photo leaks, and so are not good sources for building content. The article appears to be little more than a list (Celebrity nude photo leaks#List of nude photo leaks). As a list, it is not a notable list, and so must be considered a navigation aid, and so should be primarily linked to articles about specific leaks. If the subject is to be a general and scholarly treatment matcing the title, as the nominator seems to be saying, then the article should not be listing and linking every example.
- The application of WP:CSG#G10 and the oversighting appear be very liberal. I will endorse the deletion log's IAR rationale as a once off, the sources do not fit at all with policy on WP:SOURCES. That is not a speedy criterion but it will serve no purpose to list them again on Wikipedia.
- I suggest that the deleted content, if not already saved, or obtained from the cache, should be emailed to the nominator, and the he be encouraged to write a new article. This new article should use reputable sources on the subject generally, and should not be a list article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again we're in a discussion that combines two different questions. (1) Was it appropriate to nuke that particular content? and (2) Would it be possible, in principle, to write an article with this title? I think there's a clear consensus that the answer to (1) is "definitely"; the DRV closer may wish to apply a suitable barnstar to Black Kite's userpage. (2) is a whole lot less clear cut and I can see both sides of it. My concern is that if we did have an article called "Celebrity nude photo leaks" it would constantly attract vandals and problems of the most urgent and difficult kind ---- so if we allow it to be created at all then this would be one of the very, very small number of cases where it would be appropriate to apply pending changes level 2. Or even that pre-emptive full protection that Wikipedia's policies don't let us use.—S Marshall T/C 11:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per WP:IAR. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, possibly a lawyer reading G10 can find a gap, but wikipedia is much better without pages like this, enough wikilawyering. Spumuq (talq) 11:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and we are not a bureaucracy. Well, we are, but we shouldn't be. Thanks Black Kite. Drmies (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse of the CSD of the article in its current state, but adding that an article should be possible if only the most pristine high-quality sources were used (to avoid the BLP) and that the article was carefully worded and protected from vandal per S Marshall. The article is (was?) currently nowhere close to that, so the G10 was appropriate here. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
