Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Adler

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 delete. --Michael Snow 00:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Adler

[edit]
Tiffany Adler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Closer's notes
The balance of debate favored deletion, with a group favoring keeping the article. Articles for deletion is a discussion and not a vote, so the points made in the discussion had to be given appropriate weight.

As several people pointed out, the article falls under the scope of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which requires high standards for justifying content and strict adherence to policies on neutrality, verifiability, and avoiding original research. Renaming the article does not change the calculus, because the article still focuses by definition on an incident that was entirely about the actions of this individual. Despite the efforts to present the incident in neutral language, the apparent absence of verifiable information to support a balanced view of this person's life makes it extremely difficult to produce a neutral stand-alone article. This factor thus weighed in favor of deletion.

Much of the debate centered on notability, with no immediate consensus on that issue. The subject matter for an encyclopedia is a matter of editorial judgment, so attempts to reduce this to pure formulas (misdemeanors by definition are not notable, X number of sources by definition is notable) were given less weight. After this was done, the clear weight of opinion, as expressed by most of the editors who moved beyond formulas, favored deletion. They effectively reached an editorial judgment that the subject was trivial and not of lasting significance.

Another possibility was to merge the content of the article elsewhere. A few people raised, but did not carry out, alternative suggestions about where to cover the incident. It might be possible to discuss it in the context of gay bashing or Pacifica, California. However, the evidence did not really show that the incident was significant to the history of either of those subjects, and it would be inappropriate to push that forward as a novel argument without supporting evidence. Accordingly, I declined to consider the option of merging the content.

Weighting the points made during the discussion based on this evaluation, the result was a consensus in favor of deletion.

This person has not been found guilty of anything, I've already removed significant WP:BLP violations with categorisation and 'See also's, and removed a submission for Featured Article. Non-notable event? Steve (Stephen) talk 09:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree. It may be a hate crime, but it is still a relatively petty crime. Wikipedia is not a place to report every minor crime that happens.Balloonman 14:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete BLP-violating non-notable rubbish; she hasn't even been convicted! CloudNine 15:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This event was significantly notable in Pacifica, front page news in the local paper. Also, repeated articles in the regional San Mateo County paper. And, repeated coverage in the paper of the nearby Cities of San Francisco and Palo Alto. Witness also, as genuine measure of 'notability', this thread in Google groups. Empirically, the news coverage I have cited carries more weight than the personal value judgment Baloonman who appears to be basing his/her opinion on personal bias as 'minor crime' and 'petty crime'. Also, CloudNine offers no evidence to back his/her reasons, and lacking such we must conclude are personal biased opinion. SaltyBoatr 15:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we should include an article on every notable suspect, even if they may later be found innocent of the crime? That would surely
She is not a suspect, she is a plaintiff, she has allready been arraigned.T ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Still, she hasn't been convicted yet, which is the most important thing. CloudNine 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a WP:BLP violation, and be a stain on their reputation. CloudNine 15:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The incidant in and of itself is a stain on her reputation, this artile is not intended to "stain" her, the police reports and San Francisco Examiner article have allready done that. Notwithstanding her pending trial, any one who googles hername or does a backround check would run into this information even if wikipedia did not exist.T ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 19:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You use a Straw Man Argument as I don't advocate for 'every'. Neither do I advocate for violating BLP, and clearly this article could exist in compliance with BLP if carefully edited. I presented evidence that this case is notable; evidence which you have not addressed or refuted. Neither have you presented evidence clarifying the appearance that your position appears based on little more that personal opinion and personal bias. SaltyBoatr 16:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited it to take care of some of the more blatant WP:BLP problems, but it's still pretty thin. Most of the articles aren't really all that detailed and there were several statements without sources. I still think it's non-notable based on the fact the crime is a misdemeanor. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 17:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy standard has nothing to do with 'misdemeanor'. Please re-read WP:Notable. The standard is: A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The conditions for that standard have clearly been met in this instance. SaltyBoatr 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under that argument there should not have been an article on Scott Peterson until he was convicted or acquitted, and from where you're coming from it seems like that if he were mistrial ed he wouldn't have an article at all. Whether or not the charges are later dropped is conjecture, and wikipedia doesn't exclude articles on conjecture. The whole Duke Lacrosse Scandal is a good example of how those situations may be mitigated effectively. And whethere you think it is a bloody misdemeanor or not, I'm sure you would love having apples chucked at you. I'm sure it would be lovely if i were gay and someone chased me in a car and threw blunt objects at me while i walk down the street with my sweety. It made it into the San Francisco Examiner a newspaper for a major American city. It passes the notability test and the google test.T ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to attack Lankybugger. The Scott Peterson case received "dominated the American media for many months," and was clearly notable. I'm not sure it passes the Google test. CloudNine 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Google test' is not found in WP:Notability and therefore irrelevant. And, whether CloudNine finds it personally notable is irrelevant. Please re-read WP:Notability, the conditions have been met. SaltyBoatr 19:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't claiming non-notability via the Google test. This article is not about Tiffany Adler anyway; it's about a fruit-throwing incident she may or may not have been involved in and has not been convicted for (see Wikipedia:Notability (people)). I'll support a move to April 2007 Pacifica fruit-throwing incident, as it's a more suitable title. CloudNine 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh no thats pattently false, newspapers report she doesn deny being involved, the only thing she denies is knowing that they are gay, please read the articlesT ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make a case for a new article about the incident, but that is irrelevant to the issue at hand: the deletion of this article. The two questions raised are BLP and notability. The BLP issues have been addressed and apparently resolved through diligent editing. The notability issues are also resolved by distinguishing between 'personally notable to individual editors' (irrelevant) and notability per WP:Notability criteria. The criteria of WP:Notability have all been met. At present I see no WP:Policy based reasons which justify the deletion of this article. SaltyBoatr 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man arguments. The article does not say 'convicted'. The 'BLP issues' appear to have already been resolved, and if not, they can be resolved through editing. SaltyBoatr 17:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not straw man arguments. Policy arguments. There's no evidence of notability. The five sources here were news, yes, but there's been multiple coverage in many different sources for other news items which turned out to be non-notable. If Adler's charges are subsequently dropped, proven false, etc, we have an accusation which is effectively groundless and even mentioning the alleged hate-crime would be a WP:BLP issue. Again, it's not our job to disprove the notability, but it's your job to prove notability. This incident which is a misdemeanor. It's gotten very little media coverage, most of it of the "Hey, this happened" variety with no follow up. And note I'm not arguing for deletion forever, but deletion until the charges are resolved. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 17:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following this in the local and regional press, and your characterizations that this 'gotten very little media coverage' and 'no follow up' are incorrect. I mentioned the print coverage, but there has also been 'top story' broadcast media coverage[1]. I also disagree that if the article sticks to credible source policies that BLP is violated, this is not actually the case. SaltyBoatr 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm speaking of course, of the items cited in the article itself. Please go ahead and update the article with more sources and I'll be happy to reconsider my position. Right now I'm looking at the articles and essentially seeing nothing which indicates this is a notable event. Further searches for Tiffany Adler online show the same articles sourced here: One piece covered around the time it happened, and then two more around the time the "Not Guilty" plea was entered. Which newspaper was this on the front page of? Which news outlets covered this more than once, and on what dates? If this was covered on TV, by what news station and during which report? Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the local newspaper, the Pacifica Tribune. You perhaps are looking at only online web sources? This was in the paper version which I read in March. The TV coverage was on local station KPIX a CBS affiliate. Sorry, I do not have instant recollection of the exact dates. Still, even without my answers to your three questions, there is already enough corroboration online to meet the standards of WP:Notability, that is: coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. SaltyBoatr 18:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, you're starting to convince me that the incident is notable but not necessarily the person. If this has caused a zeitgeist movement in regards to hate crimes, it might be better to refocus the article more around the incident and not Tiffany Adler herself. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people), Tiffany Adler still doesn't meet the requirements as the articles all focus on the incident and not on her. It's a subtle distinction, yes, but an important one. None of the articles focus on Tiffany Adler herself, but focus on the "Hate Crime" she's of which she's been accused. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The standards of Wikipedia:Notability (people) are: A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.. These conditions have been met. SaltyBoatr 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited five six examples[2][3] of evidence which support 'notability'.SaltyBoatr 17:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP and i wrote the article so well I'm not even being bias!
  • This is straight from WP:BIO
Multiple features in credible news media.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Note that at least three of those sources repeat the same text. CloudNine 20:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heres a few, i might have repeated 2.T ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Extensively covered in the LGBT media[reply]

Strong delete Even stronger delete (see below), I have no idea what is supposed to be notable about this article, conviction or not. It was covered in the local media in Pacifica, so what? I live in Bexleyheath, and dozens of news items are covered in our local media every week, none of them notable, or interesting. Neither is this one. Jdcooper 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read WP:Notability. The standard is not whether you find it notable, the Wikipedia notability standard is coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. Those conditions are clearly met in this instance. SaltyBoatr 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying to lobby me on my talk page, certainly doesn't reek of trying to shape wikipedia to push a particular agenda. I still see absolutely no evidence of this minor breach of the peace being noteworthy outside the small, apparently uneventful, niche of California it was committed. Coverage in any other areas of America? Or mainstream (non-local) media? Wikipedia is not a compendium of local news stories from around the world. Jdcooper 23:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion, but you do not mention a basis in Wikipedia policy. Could you point to Wikipedia policy violations forming the basis of your opinion? SaltyBoatr 02:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this article. Do we then have an article on Mr Tombe? We do not, because, despite coverage in the media (bearing in mind this is the BBC, rather than the Somewhere in California Chronicle) the story would not be considered to have enough mainstream interest, outside those in Hai Malakal, those involved with marriage lawmaking in Sudan, or those involved in goat welfare, or whatever. You may (or at least should) say my article on Mr Tombe would be allowed to stay, if I wrote it, since it has media coverage, but you and I know it would be deleted. Then consider this article. Amariah Linton does not get an article, despite being convicted of a more weighty crime than Tiffany Adler is set to be (this story would also have been covered in dozens of other publications, including the Evening Standard, and possibly some nationals). We do not cover all crimes. Thousands of crimes are covered by local publications every day, how is this different? Jdcooper 03:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your reply, but find it ultimately subjective, and WP:N#Notability_is_not_subjective. Do you have objective reasons to delete this article? SaltyBoatr 16:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of articles is subjective, the notability is not. We avoid subjectivity by avoiding recentism and avoiding personal bias, not just in what we write but which articles we push to be kept. Keeping this article would be the most absurd act of recentism, as well as bowing to the POV of two editors who are pushing harder than all the rest, lobbying talk pages and responding to every vote, almost suggesting conflict of interest. Do you have any objective reasons to keep this article? Jdcooper 00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You answered my question with a question, not an answer. By the way, avoiding recentism is not a Wikipedia policy. I have no conflict of interest, after all I am just asking that Wikipedia policy be followed. I ask again, do you have any objective reasons (based upon Wikipedia policy) to delete this article? SaltyBoatr 04:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no longer care - keep your local news story if it means that much to you, WP:PAPER after all, but this sets a bizarre precedent. "MAN TRIPS, SUES COUNCIL! 'They should have done more to keep our pavements even' says bricklayer Gary, 48, of Catford" - read all about it on Wikipedia! Jdcooper 01:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I'm still not totally convinced of the notability of the person as the coverage seems to be more incidental than anything else, but without information on the sources SaltyBoatr mentioned it's impossible to judge. I still say that the article should be renamed as it seems to focus more on the incident than the person. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 20:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are four credible independent and reliable sources:[8][9][10][11] meeting the policy requirements of WP:Notable. The print edition of Pacifica Tribune newspaper has limited online presence, and my printed paper copies have been recycled at this point in time, so I am relying upon my memory. Regardless, the four citations above are sufficient to meet WP:Notability. SaltyBoatr 20:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm no longer pushing for deletion. My argument now is simply that the focus of the article should be on the incident and not the person (as that's what the focus of the sources is on), but that's something which can be relegated to editing at a later date. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 21:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many hate crimes are severely underreported by the news media IMHO. I agree that maybe renaming and relocating to an article on hate crimes, or hate crimes against gays, might be a good solution. But I think it is a notable article for having occurred here in the San Francisco Bay Area, considered a bastion of liberal thinking...not so.--Komunysta 21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Much as it's tempting to vilify the subject on a popular website, we can't have an article for every minor hate crime that occurs everywhere, especially when the subject hasn't even been convicted yet. According to this [12] there were 7,271 known offenders of hate crimes in the USA alone in the single year of 1999 (1,376 homophobic), and I bet that figure's increased since. EliminatorJR Talk 22:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion, but you do not mention a basis in Wikipedia policy. Could you point to Wikipedia policy violations forming the basis of your opinion? SaltyBoatr 02:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. WP:NOTE includes "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.". All we have here is local coverage. See also "Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable" (also from WP:NOTE). This incident is local. EliminatorJR Talk 11:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ask that EliminatorJR 'policy based opinion' given above be evaluated in context of the section from which he/she selectively quotes, WP:N#Notability_is_not_subjective, starting with "Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations..." In short, this article does meet the objective criteria for WP:Notability, and that the EliminatorJR rejection reason: 'what we have hear is local coverage' is subjective, not objective. SaltyBoatr 16:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*strong strong really strong bulletproof keep per everything ive said, no one has come up with any compelling reasons based on actual policy that this article should be removed except for their own personal opinions. can we close this ludacrous discussion and keep the article allready?T ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 04:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC) * Editor (involved in article) has already !voted once. EliminatorJR Talk 00:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

    • Comment, when arguing for inclusion, the burden of proof is on you. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or an almanac of crimes. Surely you would not argue that every topic covered in a reliable media source is notable enough for an article? Reliable sources are necessary for notability, but not sufficient. Please see my examples above with my delete vote to see what i mean. The single most important rule in deletion process is that every article be treated on its own merits. Obviously someone somewhere has some massive concern over this article existing, for whatever reason that may be, please do not misrepresent policy to backup your personal bias. Jdcooper 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which of your (so far) two "keep" posts do you expect to be counted, this one or this one? Both of them? — Æ. ✉ 05:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't expect either to be counted, because this is not a popular vote, nor a vote at all, i hope you look up deletion policy and get educated about it. The strengh and validity of the arguements and their relationship to Wikipedia policy like WP:BIO and WP:Notability are what this article will be judged by, by the sysop., if you must know i didnt think my first one was clear and i think i didnt sign it, it looked to me as if it would look like a vote with no explanation which would cause it to be disregardedT ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 05:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Extremely minor incident in the grand scheme of things, not encyclopedic in the long term. FCYTravis 05:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTABILITY "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information, and a doubt whether coverage on every notable homophobic crime that takes place is appropriate - Wikipedia is not a crime database nor a newspaper. I don't appreciate lobbying on my talk page, and why do SaltyBoatr and Qrc2006 have to respond to every delete vote? Surely the strength of their arguments will convince the AFD closer? CloudNine 10:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. My need to 'respond' has been in good faith, intended to foster better understanding of the arguments and clarify which are objectively based upon WP:Policy and which are based upon subjective personal opinion. SaltyBoatr 17:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
in the u.s. supreme court, lawyers make predominantly written arguements, on wikipedia discussion pages, whats it called again oh yeah DISCUSSION sorry for shouting but yes discussion page, hmm silly me, sorry for participating in the discussion, and a word of advice, if you dont want me to respond to your comments dont discuss your points of view on a discussion page with me, because call me crazy but i tend to do the logical action of participating in a page whose purpose is back-and-forth disccsion, this page is not a voting page, vote are not counted. and as for the validity of my arguements, read other users comments, some have been convinced after having been showed sources which they were unaware of. and gowsh-assume bad faith why dont ya? and as for the comments about my comments on other peoples pages, the fact that many said this article was too minor made me think that they wouldnt be back and therefore be unaware of any discussion here so i said hi on your talk pages, clearly a foolish and inaprpropriate action, how dare i talk to people on their talk pages, the nerve i have. as for my comment right here which will no doubt be labeled a tangent by one of the many unwavering deletion nazis abound ill say it first ok fine its a tangent, this is a duscussion i dont think whispers or monosylabic sound bite will suffice.71.142.69.128 20:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a minor incident. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikipedia is not a police blotter. Wikipedia is not the place to right the wrongs against one group or another. IMHO, this story will not stand out as notable in three months, when countless other similar hate crimes have occurred. - BierHerr 20:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I am trying to better understand your reasoning, please clarify: I do not see 'minor incident' in WP:Notability, where to you see this criteria in WP:Policy? I see that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper is not actually the policy of Wikipedia, do you agree? How do you conclude that this article is intended to 'right the wrongs against one group or another'? Where do you find your 'police blotter' and 'three month' tests in WP:Policy? Thanks in advance for your answers. SaltyBoatr 20:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:Notability gives a guideline that a notable person should have "Multiple features in credible news media." Tiffany Adler is the subject of exactly one article in the local news sources listed in the article. Most of those articles give no more insight into the event than a police blotter would. This, to me, shows that this is a minor incident and not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. That is my interpretation. The other statements I made are not meant to be policy. They are meant to be my opinion, which should be quite valid given that this is a discussion. You appear to have a very keen interest in this article, and wish to have it kept. That is also noted in the record. However, my opinion is still Delete. - BierHerr 23:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the helpful reply, though you mention 'exactly one article', indeed there are four. SaltyBoatr 01:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: four sources, but only one article written in each source, for a total of four articles. - BierHerr 03:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comments by Bierherr and CloudNine appear false or muddled. There are many independent credible sources for this topic. The pertinent criteria, per WP:Notability, is: Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". In this case, attracting the notice of six major local independent credible sources who found the topic worthy. The sources are:
1) Palo Alto Daily News, an independent credible newspaper.
2) KTVU, an independent television station, a FOX affiliate.
3) The San Francisco Examiner, an independent newspaper.
4) KPIX, an independent television station, a CBS affiliate.
5) Also, the San Mateo Daily Journal, [13], an independent newspaper
6) Also, coverage on Inside Bay Area, an independent newservice.
This clearly meets the policy standard for notability of Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr 18:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several of these sources copy each other from what I've read, making them useless for reference purposes. CloudNine 19:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am compelled to remind co-editors that the question at hand is WP:BLP and WP:Notability, not 'reference purposes'. The objective WP:BLP issues have been now been resolved through diligent editing, and the objective WP:Notability policy standards have been met. It doesn't matter if there is some repetition of material between the articles and it does not render the source material totally useless for reference purposes. Indeed the duplication is evidence that independent credible journalist have evaluated the topic again and again and reached similar professional judgments that it is notable. The repetition corroborates the notability. SaltyBoatr 21:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not "repetition," it's simply a local (probably Bay Cities News Service) wire story being reposted on several web sites. There's no evidence that it's been picked up by the Associated Press or given any sort of broader coverage outside the San Mateo peninsula. FCYTravis 23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any of those criteria, 'can't be local', 'can't be wire story', 'can't be reposted', 'must make it on Associated Press' in WP:Notability. I must conclude that they are from your own personal and subjective opinion. And, WP:Note#Notability_is_not_subjective. SaltyBoatr 23:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to double-count "references" which are exactly the same. FCYTravis 23:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Bierherr, who notes that there are four non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject, so this unquestionably meets WP:N. The article is free of BLP concerns, it does not pass judgment, it merely attributes what the media reported. There's a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here, but there's no question that the article meets our notability guidelines. — coelacan — 22:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My point was that these four sources gave very shallow coverage, and that each newspaper only wrote one article. If a person was notable, one would expect multiple stories in each source. WP:N reminds us to consider the depth of coverage, and I think this coverage was too shallow to merit keeping a separate article. - BierHerr 15:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply not true that we have no reliable sources. Please tell us how much research you did before reaching your summary judgment. Your quibble may be that we do not immediately have enough reliable sources? That is subjective, and not policy based. Your moving this article without WP:Policy based explanation has a bad appearance of abuse of your administrator power, and you should explain your actions citing valid specific WP:Policy reasons to remove this bad appearance. Further, your choice of new title seems silly and demeaning of an alleged hate crime, how did you choose that title? Certainly not by using Wikipedia:Consensus. SaltyBoatr 02:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is absolutely true that we have no reliable sources which can provide context and information about Ms. Adler's life. In their absence, it is impossible to write a complete, balanced biography of a person. It does not take "administrator power" to move a page. As for the title, it's factual. A fruit-throwing incident. It's your POV that the "title seems silly and demeaning." We cannot choose the facts of the case. FCYTravis 02:30, 21 April 2007 (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.
  1. ^ Pacifica Woman Charged For Assaulting Gay Couple With Produce KTVU.com, a fox affiliate (15 April 2007)
  2. ^ Not guilty plea in alleged hateful fruit tossing by Michelle Durand, The Daily Journal (San Mateo, California) (April 16 2007)
  3. ^ Woman accused of tossing fruit at gays by Brian Foley, San Francisco Examiner (March 6, 2007 3 AM PST)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tiffany_Adler&oldid=1079084746"