Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 July 1
2011 July 3 >

2 July 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lewinsky (neologism) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
List of references
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Thibault, David (2004-06-25). "Lewinsky: Clinton is a 'Liar and a Creep'". CNSNews.com. Archived from the original on 2005-12-30. "After years of therapy, Lewinsky told the Daily Mail that she is still tormented by the affair and its resultant publicity, especially because her name continues to be synonymous with oral sex."
  • a b "If The Spiked Heels Fit, Well...". San Jose Mercury: p. 6b. 1999-10-19. "And Monica Lewinsky? Her name is passing into the vernacular as a synonym for oral sex."
  • Shittu, Hakeem; Callie Query. "Glossary". Absurdities, Scandals & Stupidities in Politics. p. 128. "Slang term for oral sex coined in the wake of the political scandal over President Bill Clinton's liaisons with White House intern Monica Lewinsky."
  • a b Ross, Ally (14 October 1999). "Monica Lewinsky; UK Confidential.". The Sun: p. 22. "BOLDLY following the trail blazed by Errol Flynn, MONICA LEWINSKY's name has now become the unofficial American slang term for what we modestly refer to in the tabloid press as a "sex act"."
  • Partridge, Eric; Tom Dalzell, Terry Victor (2007). The concise new Partridge dictionary of slang and unconventional English. Routledge. p. 55.
  • Lakely, James G. (19 March 2000). "For once, Clinton foe is using Clintonian tactics". The Free Lance-Star: p. E3.
  • Boone, Matt (22 May 2009). "Jim Ross On WWE/Denver Incident, RAW Announcing, Tag-Teams". Wrestlezone. Retrieved 2 July 2011. "Most know what a "Lewinsky" refers to so I wonder if arena scheduling issues might be referred to as "Kroenke's" in the future?"
  • Dalzell, Tom; Terry Victor (2007). Sex Slang. Routledge. p. 105.
  • Peterkin, Allan (1999). The bald-headed hermit and the artichoke:an erotic thesaurus. Arsenal Pulp Press. pp. 154.
  • Garnett, Gale (17 July 1999). "More vulgar than erotic". Globe & Mail.
  • "Lewinsky and the first lady". USA Today. AP. 19 March 2008.
  • "CLINTON'S SEX-CAPADES LEAD STUDENTS TO SERIOUS DIALOGUE". The Times Leader. 19 September 1998.
  • Kastor, Elizabeth (25 January 1998). "Political Troublespeak: With Each Scandal, a New Lingo". The Washington Post.
  • Parker, Kathleen (15 September 1999). "Were Jones' claim true -- that the then-Arkansas governor invited her to perform a Lewinsky -- she should have smirked, thrown back her head and laughed shrilly". USA Today. "Start with Paula Jones, who, you have to admit, pre-surgery, bore a striking resemblance to a certain Oz character. Hint: I'll get you my little pretty. Were Jones' claim true -- that the then-Arkansas governor invited her to perform a Lewinsky -- she should have smirked, thrown back her head and laughed shrilly."
  • Groen, Rick (20 November 1998). "Woody's comic muse craps out". Globe & Mail: p. E1. "Early on, one grateful subject (Melanie Griffith) invites him back to her childhood home, wiggles suggestively on her old frame bed, then thanks Lee by performing a full Lewinsky on his startled self."
  • Lyall, Sarah (24 December 2000). "Return to Sender, Please". New York Times.
  • Schoenkopf, Rebecca (2 December 1999). "The Full Lewinsky". The OC Weekly. Retrieved 1 July 2011.
  • Lawson, Dominic (2 February 2006). "We expect no better of John Prescott". The Independent.
  • Miller, Dennis (30 July 2008). "Dennis Miller Opines on Scott McClellan, McCain Ad, L.A. Earthquake". The O'Reilly Factor. Fox News Network.
  • Marcus, Lloyd (1 July 2011). "A Case For Cain". American Thinker. Retrieved 1 July 2011.
  • Kahane, David (June 6 2011). "Wasting Away in Tonyweinerville". National Review Online. National Review. Retrieved 1 July 2011.
  • Limbaugh, Rush (2 June 2011). "On Leaders and Their Flaws". The Rush Limbaugh Show. Retrieved 1 July 2011. "I mean there are women who write of Bill Clinton, "I would give Clinton a Lewinsky myself just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.""
  • Limbaugh, Rush (21 February 2011). "Study: Lewinskys Cause More Throat Cancer Than Tobacco". The Rush Limbaugh Show. Retrieved 1 July 2011. "I'll leave that up to you, moms and dads, to explain to your youngsters, "What is a Lewinsky?" I'm just trying to keep the program aboveboard."
  • Bleyker, Katie Den (2 October 2001). "Comedy 'Patterson' cannot compare to clever 'Seinfeld'". The Michigan Daily.
  • Leibowitz, David (20 October 1999). "Lewinsky name becomes lewd noun". Arizona Republic. "It seems that last week, in one of those beautiful art-mirrors-life moments, a Law & Order character searching for exactly the right euphemism to describe oral sex uttered a novel, yet deadly accurate coinage: Getting a Lewinsky."
  • a b "Lewinsky's dad mad at use of name". Reading Eagle: p. W17. 15 October 1999. Retrieved 1 July 2011.
  • "Lewinsky father enraged by new TV slang". BBC News. Retrieved 1 July 2011.
  • a b Ojumu, Akin (17 October 1999). "Taking the Lewinsky name in vain". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 July 2011.
  • Wolk, Josh. "Blown Opportunity". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 1 July 2011. "Now no one will know if getting a Lewinsky means receiving oral sex, or receiving a lot of publicity for a clichéd joke that otherwise would have been ignored."
  • "Editorial: Lewinsky, the verb". Savannah Morning News. Retrieved 1 July 2011. "THE LONG-term historical repercussions of the Clinton impeachment are impossible to predict. But the Lewinsky episode has produced at least one short-term contribution to the popular culture lexicon: an eponymous euphemism for oral sex."
  • Wolf, Dick; Susan Green, Randee Dawn (2009). Law & Order: Special Victims Unit Unofficial Companion. BenBella Books. p. 291.

The article was speedy deleted by Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who said that it violated BLP but did not list any specific CSD reason. He also blocked, without warning, the editor who created it. The article appears to have been well-sourced, and the word has been included in at least one slang dictionary. Those of us who are old enough may recall that it did, in fact, become a euphemism for fellatio. I suggest that the article be restored and go through AFD.   Will Beback  talk  22:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)   Will Beback  talk  22:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Take a look at the sourcing, it depends on low-quality, mostly comedic and unreliable sources that in no way meet the threshold of WP:BLP requirements for high quality reliable sources. The editor who posted it was an obvious sock/spa with only this BLP violation as edits. User:Will Beback's personal recollections and experience in this subject are of no relevance whatsoever. Dreadstar ☥ 23:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain: which specific part of BLP does the article violate?   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how you read that NYT source and decided it was of sufficient quality and content to support this BLP article. Dreadstar ☥ 23:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 30 sources cited. But this DRV concerns your action, so again please give a policy-based reason for the deletion.  Will Beback  talk  23:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain your own opinion on this, the article itself goes against one of the sources you cite as making this article sufficiently sourced per WP:BLP, it clearly says "The concise new Partridge dictionary of slang and unconventional English" has a similar entry for "an act of oral sex on a man", although the listing is under "Bill Clinton" rather than Lewinsky". A similar entry, but no entry for this purported neologism. 23:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The Partridge dictionary says: "Lewinsky: an act of oral sex" and goes one to define it and give examples of usage.[2]   Will Beback  talk  23:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will, drop the stick and stop being obtuse. BLP concerns override the shit argument that is "OMG RELIABLE SOURCEZZZZZZ!!!" Tarc (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, I can't get the deleting admin to point to the part of BLP which this violates. Can you do so? 00:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
And is that reference in the article? I didn't see it, just the 'similar' comment in the lead section, and even if it's there, is that sufficient for a BLP? NO. What did you see in the New York Times article that makes it a RS, Will? Drop the stick indeed. Dreadstar ☥ 00:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the NYT citation and there are still 30 left. One bad citation is not a reason to speedy delete an otherwise well-sourced article.   Will Beback  talk  00:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who brought up the NYT citation, can't you defend it? I don't think you can; and I don't think the other 30 are defensible either - how many did you look at that didn't even mention this puported neologism? I know how many I looked at, and it was insufficient for this article. Dreadstar ☥ 02:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Yet another "word" being used to get a few laughs over the years; an episode of one of those banal Law and order episodes, I believe. Just an extension of the pointiness seen over the santorum debacle. Btw, what is the timestamp of the article's creation? I can't see that in the log. Tarc (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remain deleted but also delete "santorum" - Either keep both or delete both - The Lewinsky joke at least reflects reality. The "santorum" thing is the twisted fantasy of a radio shock-jock. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a matter of being objective. We should cover everything that people find reliable sources for. I am very, very tired of being accused of being "not objective" because I don't think you can censor whatever you don't like for no other reason than that. Wnt (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to think that WP is the only source of anything. There are countless other sources, and if I were looking for alternatives for "giving head" WP is the last place I'd go looking. Given this event is mentioned in other articles on WP to raise the issue of censorship over the deletion of this article is quite bizarre. John lilburne (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion And hooray for dreadstar. We hardly need any more euphemism for blow jobs, cocksucking, lollipop love, bibble, domer, head, etc, etc. John lilburne (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list (aside: It's good to see that folks are actually being consistent in their views rather than siding with one side or the other in the political debate.) That said, I'd never before heard of this term used this way, but after a quick review of the sources it actually seems to have a better case of being a real neologism than that other article. I don't think it counts as a G10 (it is quite well sourced and high-quality sources are generally enough to ward off a G10) and I don't see any other speedy criteria. I honestly don't think it has a snowballs chance of being deleted at AfD, but I've been wrong before. The fact that she is no longer a public figure might be the turning factor at an AfD. We'll see. Hobit (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and salt - totally agree with Tarc's comments - this place is overrun by the crowdcomplex - go on give me a lewinsky - what crap. I sometimes have to remind myself, a lot of contributors in discussions at wikipedia are twelve year old boys. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. I would hope the article would not be kept at AfD, but I reluctantly don't think it qualifies as a speedy delete.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn – Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kiwi_Bomb – There seems to be a atmosphere of bad faith and distrust whenever politics are involved. Will Beback said that the article was well-sourced. Do we have the right to assume Kiwi Bomb is here solely for malice? Let's restore the article, assume good faith, and do it properly with a AfD discussion. I would like to remind everyone that this is a discussion concerning whether Dreadstar's speedy deletion was carried out properly; it isn't a substitute AfD discussion. I personally believe that the content should be merged with Lewinsky scandal. Unlike Campaign for "santorum" neologism (which describes an event rather than a dictionary term), this is simply a word without a major machine campaigning to transform a name into a new word. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • AGF, are you serious? Do you really think a brand-new, never before edited with another account person pulls a contentious article out of his ass hours after account creation, fully formatted and cited? One that parallels what is arguably the project's most contentious article at the moment? Seriously? Tarc (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a crock of shit and you know it. Both of you. I swear to christ this Miss Manners-ish "tsk tsk, we shan't believe in naughty people" air some of you pretend to affect makes me wat to vomit in my own mouth. Tarc (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I know a WP:DUCK when I see it, and I certainly know where WP:SOCK ends and where it begins. This ain't not that. Dreadstar ☥ 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20100614/the-duck-test/ --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, quoting WR goes a long way here. I don't even know why I deleted it now. Um...who am I? WR? What? Hello world! <sigh> just when I thought this couldn't get any lower.... man. Dreadstar ☥ 03:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Godwin's Law. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, WR Law. You start it, I'll finish it. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's ridiculous to say that a newly registered user can't know Wiki format. It's not that complicated. One of the main reasons why IP editors get accounts is to start a new article - doesn't mean they never tried an edit before that. There were doubtless people at the Salem witch trials who used better logic and rules of evidence. Wnt (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and salt, with a barnstar for Dreadstar. Hilarious though it is that people get this butthurt about the Santorum article, we can't allow the ForestFires of pointy disruption to take root. Other crap exists, but that's no justification for this crap.—S Marshall T/C 00:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion So the username of the blocked editor was Kiwi Bomb? So, kiwi's look like shit, and "bomb" as in "google bomb?" I think that probably establishes intent. But anyway, at first glance anyway the sources look very poor, nothing like at santorum. If the sources turn out to be very good, against my expectations, then I might change my opinion here. Also, there is in this case a totally appropriate article to discuss such a topic, Lewinsky scandal. This article is totally unnecessary as a separate piece. BE——Critical__Talk 00:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Any chance of temporarily restoring the article so we can properly review? Otherwise, only admins can properly comment here. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Click the "cache" link at the top of this section. Tarc (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing

And now this is WP:CANVASSed with this edit, obviously meant to attract sympathetic votes. Dreadstar ☥ 23:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At User talk:Jimbo Wales you wrote: "And yet another neologism BLP vio. Sadly, here's another one".[3] When I complained on your user page about canvassing you said, "Fuck off"[4] and deleted my post.[5] That's not really the best way for an admin to respond to issues about a speedy deletion.   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Will Beback believes in this so much, perhaps he will post this BLP violation in his own userspace and then accept the consequences of that, if any. Dreadstar ☥ 23:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is thirteen years old and the idea that it is suddenly an accepted notable neothingy of encyclopedic value is just a joke - Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was created yesterday by an account created yesterday: (del/undel) (diff) 21:25, 1 July 2011 . . Kiwi Bomb(talk | contribs | block) (13,482 bytes)(new article). Lovely. Dreadstar ☥ 00:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detail - so it was created by a disruptive sock. I hope a checkuser gets their account. The worst part is that we have users that support that kind of disruptive contribution.,Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comparisons with santorum

There's no comparison, if you're poor little Monica it's one thing; if you're an ex-senator, presidential hopeful, it's quite another. And I doubt the senator was a pawn of a more powerful person, or that he ever created the frothy mix. I tend to be far more sympathetic towards Miss Lewinsky than Santorum. This is just a pathetic worse step against human dignity. So yeah, let's victimize Monica even more. Pile on. Dreadstar ☥ 00:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's really not a deletion issue, that's just grandstanding. Let's keep this discussion focused on relevant issues, please.  Will Beback  talk  00:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, calls for Human dignity are mere grandstanding. Yeah. Dreadstar ☥ 01:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Monica Lewinsky was nobody's pawn. And "giving a Lewinsky" would be immediately clear to anyone who followed the Bill Clinton scandal. The "santorum" thing has nothing to do with the politician, so to find out what it is, you have to reference the shock-jock who invented it - and there, sports fans, is what that "santorum" thing is really about: a shock-jock drawing attention to himself by slandering someone else. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, we have a President of the United States of America, and a 22-year-old intern. But she's nobody's pawn. Yeah. Dreadstar ☥ 01:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Has no encyclopedic value but to disparage the namesake. My76Strat talk 00:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD- Deletion was out of process. If this is to be deleted it needs to be done by community consensus, not unilateral action. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion There is a huge difference between media outlets getting a laugh from some titillating episode (the reliable sources) and an encyclopedia permanently recording a fad name–this article is simple trolling and the longer it is discussed the more foolish we appear. A neologism like this might be suitable for an article in another decade after some specialist publication has written that the claimed word really does have currency (as opposed to revivals of old jokes). Slang dictionaries on the Internet are full of random made-up nonsense and are not a suitable basis for determining when a joke has become a notable neologism. If we were a bureaucracy, overturning to allow prolonged discussions might be appropriate, but in this case the delete decision was entirely correct and there would be no benefit from an overturn. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: If everything you said were true then this would probably fail an AFD, though there'd be no harm in actually having one to find out. However this word appears in two printed slang dictionaries, and has been used a couple of times this year by Rush Limbaugh plus numerous sources over the past decade. So your assumptions are not entirely correct.   Will Beback  talk  07:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list and unblock the poor editor. I googled "giving a lewinsky", and there are 60 results for it. Some use the word in scare quotes. I think that unlike "santorum", this is truly a "nonce word", made up by people on the spot who expect to be understood, rather than coded with a specific meaning that is remembered. Note that people know what Monica Lewinsky is famous for and draw the meaning directly, not as a result of reading a meaning intended for the word on Dan Savage's web site. I am skeptical that the article will have sufficient references to keep, but without reading it I can't say. There is no justification for speedy deleting it without letting people read it and decide in discussion. Above all, I am disturbed by the blocking of the person who created this article, who like the victim of some Soviet purge would seem to be guilty of nothing but standing in the wrong political place at the wrong time! If there hadn't been a WP:POINT to be made about "santorum", this could have been a noncontroversial decision to transwiki and redirect to Wiktionary without any deletion or admin action of any variety. Wnt (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list Out of process deletion, we are probably better off without the article, nonetheless I don't think it warranted an out of process deletion. As illustrated by the large number of people above, this deserved a discussion. Monty845 01:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AFD. The fact that this deletion is controversial (among accomplished, respected editors) means that it's not a good candidate for speedy deletion. What BLP violation did this article have, and was it serious enough to merit speedy deletion, rather than editing it out, and sending to AFD if sourcing's a concern? Buddy431 (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and send to AfD The primary point of BLP is to minimize harm. Given how incredibly famous the individual in question is that isn't an issue here. The large number of reliable sources make the claim of a BLP issue even more problematic. Similarly, the unblock seems like a bad idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and AfD I don't see the draft as a major BLP violation, while there may be some BLP concerns involved I don't think they are severe enough to justify speedy deletion. There might be a case that this actually meets WP:NEO, so I think we'd be best to at least have a deletion discussion on the issue. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP overrides all that, and totally justifies so-called 'speedy' in this case. Base your arguments on the facts of the article, not some vague "enough room for doubt"....there IS no room for doubt in a WP:BLP, don't you get that? Dreadstar ☥ 03:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the condescending attitude. I have read the latest version of the article, and it's written in a reasonably neutral fashion that concentrates more on use of the term in the media, rather than shits-and-giggles namecalling like you seem to imply. It's probably embarrassing for Monica Lewinsky, but it largely meets WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, just as the BLP policy demands. Granted, I'll probably still vote Delete in the AFD if and when it happens. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, of course, your own condescending attitude notwithstanding. Dreadstar ☥ 04:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD - Were this AFD, I would opine to redirect it to Lewinsky scandal, but this isn't AFD. There is no warrant for a speedy deletion of this article in BLP. --B (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on what? Dreadstar ☥ 03:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on I read it and it's not an attack page. I have no idea whose opinions/actions are what they really believe and whose are just for the purpose of fighting the Santorum war on another front. Shame on anyone who is !voting here based on the Santorum article. I'm sure that the SPA who created it was someone's bad hat sock and I'd be more inclined to agree with the deletion on those grounds (WP:DENY and all that), but the article is well-sourced and not an appropriate BLP deletion. --B (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Glad to hear you agree with delete, not sure where you got that I deleted it as an attack page, but I'm sure somewhere in our combined logic there's a reason for deletion besides it being created by an SPA - because that's not good grounds. Dreadstar ☥ 04:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to afd An entirely out of process IAR deletion. I am not at all certain about whether this term is suitable for an article, and so it needs to be discussed. Calling out BLP is not a free pass, as arb com made clear. What does no harm is not a BLP violation. Bad taste is not a BLP violation. The arguments based on attack p. or BLP violation are in ignorance of the Real World: given the history of the period and the massive international publicity there is no conceivable way this can be considered an attack page or a BLP violation. . All the arguments here for endorsing the deletion because the page should not be in Wikipedia is irrelevant , because regardless of the ultimate decision, it was not a valid speedy. Any admin can make an error with a speedy, --I have done so a number of times, but colleagues always correct me & I hope I do not then continueto insist on it, as here. --but that others actually endorse an error as they do here because THEYDONTLIKEITEITHER is the embodiment of folow-the-leaderbad judgment. There are 800 active admins, each with their personal views. That's why we have AfD, and why speedy is restricted to unquestionable deletions. Considering that santorum survived AfD , the community decided that that page was not an attack p, or a valid BLP deletion, and arguing we should delete this one on the precedent of a similar page that was not deleted is perverse-- or perhaps prejudiced. (I note again I am not passing judgement on the p. itself, nor am I saying that I regard the Santorum p. in any of its versions as suitable. I have certain prejudices about the decency of political discourse myself, but I do not impose them on the community when it has decided otherwise.) DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD I would personally vote delete for such an article, but it didn't fall under any of the Speedy Deletion categories. Calling it an attack page is just false. SilverserenC 03:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Johnuniq. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. DGG has it spot on. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. Unilateral Action not supported by CSD. Agathoclea (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, not an attack page, not a candidate for speedy deletion. The only person guilty of WP:POINT here is Dreadstar. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong undelete. WP:BLP applies to unsourced or questionably sourced statements about Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, Rick Santorum and the like. Statements that are negative but factual and impeccably sourced ("George W. Bush was once arrested for drunk driving . . [Alicia C. Shepard "A Late-Breaking Campaign Skeleton," American Journalism Review, December 2000]") do not qualify. Wiwaxia (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Justification for speedy deletion murky, especially the invoking of WP:BLP, as repeated abuse of that area of policy has made it a blunt tool. (See WP:CRYBLP and WP:BLPZEAL.) Allow AfD to run its course. Community input called for. Bus stop (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Article was completely inappropriate; have we lost all respect for other people? If YOU were Monica Lewinsky, how would YOU feel? Disgusted? Sad? Angry? Appalled? Appalled that now EVERYONE has free access to learning about the different times people have used your name to refer to oral sex? What the fuck is wrong with people these days??? If we send this to AfD what is the point, do you like drama? No, the speedy was totally correct. We must preserve what little dignity is left. BLP is about PROTECTING PEOPLE. A reliable source does not automatically make harmful material acceptable for inclusion. We must use COMMON FUCKING SENSE (wait ...) and FUCKING PROTECT PEOPLE. Now pardon me while I make sexual neologisms out of several peoples' usernames and see what happens. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason the world knows about it is because Monica blabbed to a "friend" about it. And I haven't seen anything to suggest that she was ashamed of any of it. It was like collecting an autograph. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I were M.L., my disgust would be at the inventors of the neologism, and not at the fact that when it unfortunately and stupidly became notable , an encyclopedia included it. The harm has been done, And, not that it is to the point, I agree with Baseball that the only person who engaged in truly bad behavior was not her, but the President. And BLP violations with respect to him about this affair ware almost impossible. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that when you abuse a policy and then you wish to apply it appropriately, it is no longer a policy with the same clear and beneficial purpose that it once had. WP:BLP has been widely abused. Perhaps I would be guilty of forum shopping but if WP:BLP is to be used as a shield to block the creation of this article I think it would be a good idea if that were exposed to community input, rather than the limited input afforded by speedy deletion. Bus stop (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break. You seriously are reduced to textually shouting obscenities over Monica Lewinsky's honor? Yes, there was a time to use common sense and protect people - and it was back when that ridiculous farce of a special prosecution over a comment in civil litigation came up. The court could have defined "sexual relationship" first, and asked Lewinsky yes or no based on that; or conducted the whole line of questioning in chambers - they chose not to do that. And now, fifteen years after the horses have bolted, you want us to try to impose the discretion that the prosecutor and court wouldn't? Really? We're here to record history - we don't have the power to rewrite it. Wnt (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and unblock  Deleting admin has repeatedly been unable to answer questions, which is a violation of wikietiquette.  Special purpose accounts are explicitly allowed for use on sex topics.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete for multiple reasons. The acting admin acted in a bold way for sure, and thank goodness.
  • The subject matter is not notable enough to have a stand alone article and as for the sources, per WP:GNG,""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Sources as a whole for the most part are weak, and its very questionable whether they can be considered as "significant coverage".
  • A third stand alone article on Monica Lewinsky whose only claim to notability is an affair with a US president is a violation of BLP. Yes, we are doing harm by dealing with this woman and her one and only notsble action three times The biography has been covered in a stand alone article, as has the scandel in a second stand alone article. I question whether the neologism aspect is even something Wikipedia should be dealing with. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. So now, we are arguing to have three standalone articles based on the mistake made by one human being. How despicable, embarrassing, and unprofessional of us as editors and an encyclopedia, and how heartless of us as human beings. And what ? We aren't good enough editors to have the neoligisn content, in a do no harm way, integrated into two other articles. Do we even need two articles? The actions necessary for deleting BLP content is clear. Remove it. And that 'remove' has to be as fast as possible to avoid harm.
  • Further a likely sock with knowledge of the Santorum article, for anyone who is aware of that article will see the parallels immediately, is playing games with us possibly to make a point, maybe just to have some fun. This is disruption pure and simple with a BLP violation at stake.
  • The Santorum article has been a huge draw on Wikipedia editor hours, this second article created with all of the concerns listed above would undoubtedly have created another similar cess pool. If the article was truly notable and did not violate BLP, fine, but its not notable and it is by its added presence to two other articles a BLP violation that does harm.
  • There is a point where we as editors have to display some common sense, ignore all rules and act boldly for the sake of the encyclopedia. Then if the community agrees reverse, but in the meantime a human being has been harmed as little as possible. We don't have the right to harm anybody . We only have the right to write fairly about the harm already done and published in RS in a manner that can be considered significant.(olive (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
To me this not merely exemplifies many of the fallacies on your side of the argument, but adds some new ones:
  • Whine to death: Complaining about any type of article wastes time, and we must not waste time, therefore the complainers must win.
  • Reverse induction: If it's right to have one article, or maybe two, then having three is just wrong.
  • Ignore all rules: To take out content and make the encyclopedia "better" by "not harming" people with unfortunate information, that is.
What really ticks me off is that even while people make these absurd arguments trying to suppress encyclopedic coverage in obscure articles (thereby vastly inflating their importance via the Streisand effect), they completely ignore the BLP issues we could have some control over without blocking editors and throwing out content: like the rush to put that guy from the IMF at the top of the Main Page news as an alleged rapist, complete with picture, even though the only evidence was one woman's allegation. Which have turned out to be rather frayed around the edges. But when it doesn't involve actually chopping out and suppressing content there's just nothing sexy about BLP and no one seems to care that much. Wnt (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Unblock. I'll be directing the next editor who invites me to create an account to this discussion. I've made roughly 1000 good faith edits as an IP, but as long as new editors are blocked as sockpuppets without even alleging who they're a sock of, or for being a SPA before they've had enough time to pick a second topic to edit, I'm convinced I'd be unwelcome if I ever tried to edit from an account. Sure, I can't vote in Arbcom elections, but at least IPs aren't (usually) given long blocks unless they actually engage in the types of vandalism I'd rather remove than create. 99.164.32.24 (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, list at AfD. I really don't think this one is all that complicated. The action by the deleting admin was obviously bold and bordered on, or perhaps just plain ran across, the ignore all rules line. Both of those things are fine, so long as the actions are largely endorsed, or not complained about, afterward. Clearly that's not what is happening at this deletion review since there is significant disagreement with the speedy deletion. The solution is pretty simple: list the thing at AfD, which in hindsight would have been the best action to begin with. Personally I don't know whether I would support deleting it or keeping it there—since this is a deletion review that doesn't matter, though it's often hard for people to remember that. Also it's worth pointing out that the Lewinsky/Santorum comparisons, analogies, etc. are distractions in this discussion. One could want the Lewinsky thing deleted and the Santorum thing kept, the Santorum thing deleted and the Lewinsky thing kept, both deleted, or both kept. All of those arguments could be constructed with some validity under Wikipedia policies, believe it or not. There is room for legitimate disagreement among well-meaning people on these issues, which again means AfD is the right place to go, although I doubt that said AfD will be particularly edifying. Finally a bit of advice to Dreadstar—if you are going to take a controversial admin action (and you had to know this would be just that), I think you really need to be able to take the heat a bit better than you have here. You have lashed out—and I can tell that you are frustrated, which of course is understandable—at multiple editors on this DRV and that isn't really appropriate behavior for an admin whose actions are being reviewed. I think it is making the discussion more difficult than it need be. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The deleting admin, must come to realize that the criterion for speedy is not: "what ought to be deleted". Speedy has narrow rules, and they are there for the very purpose of preventing controversial speedy deletions. Such deletions, especially if they are related to widely known subjects or matters that have had much argument here for one reason or another, do much more harm to the reputation of everyone involved than a normal procedure would have done. This is what always and inevitably happens when something controversial and noticeable is deleted speedy. Dreadstar, the only rational thing for you to do at this point is to reinstate the article and AfD it, thus showing you have learned something. Otherwise, to be honest with you, a deletion such as this casts doubt on all your speedy deletions. (I speak as someone who has done 10,000 speedy deletions myself, 10 or so of which were totally wrong, and from which I learned how to do it better.) DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, Dreadstar- reinstate the article, consensus is pretty clear, rather now than later. I was thinking for the users that object to such content, its better rather than attempting to resist such disruptive content to just remove it from your watchists and opt out of supporting it or commenting on it in any way - thereby reducing its google bomb weight increased by large discussions here at wikipedia. As its clear there are plenty of users that support this type of content at the moment, rather than oppose it just remove it from your view - opt out - of even commenting about such content thereby reducing its profile. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, list at AFD. There's very little left to be said. The article was plainly a POINTY creation, and the out-of-process deletion has produced the level of disruption that the creator hoped to achieve. Neologisms happen. The question here is whether this one has enough independent significance to require more than a sentence or three in one of the broader relevant articles. Cf WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Plaxico and WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Plaxico (2nd nomination). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD. Seriously, this is not a BLP: that is at Monica Lewinsky. I don't think we need this article, but deleting it won't do a thing to help any living person. I guess that AfD will find out that this is a fairly trivial neologism no longer in current use, and probably doesn't need to be documented, but there is certainly no reason to speedily delete this unless you want to increase the amount of drama. —Kusma (t·c) 19:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_July_2&oldid=1141925466"