Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination)

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 - the main thrust of the arguments from those arguing to keep is that she is notable enough to have an article (I know there are other arguments but I'm summarizing) and that the circumstances surrounding her death confer that notability. Although that is obviously (from the sheer volume of argument below) debatable it is secondary to the policy of WP:NPOV. This article, while cited, cannot be regarded as having a neutral point of view - look at the Joe Scarborough article to see the incident is covered in a far more balanced way - and since no attempt has been made to remove bias during the course of the AFD it must deleted under that policy. Yomangani^talk 11:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Deletion Reason: Pursuant to WP:BLP regarding Non-Public Figures: “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.”[1] Subject of the article is non-notable, except for a flurry of speculation in 2001 regarding Joe Scarborough’s involvement in her death, and mention in a local Florida newspaper, and that time has long passed. Article seems to be created for the sole purpose of disparaging Joe Scarborough. I don’t care for Scarborough, but having this article gives undue weight to a story which has been thoroughly discredited, and as such violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight -- there is no investigation of Scarborough, and the Coroner said Klausutis did not die under suspicious circumstances – its inclusion here is sensationalist and tabloidic, not encyclopedic. This article was deleted once before. Only 842 hits on google, most of which are blogs. If this information is notable at all, put it in the Scarborough article, and leave sensationalism to The National Enquirer. Wikipedia is not a battleground Morton devonshire 18:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History Okay, to clarify on the deletion history of the article, it was nominated for deletion twice in the past for different reasons than it is being nominated for this time. The first time, the result was delete, because it was a useless and possibly POV redirect to Joe Scarborough. The second time, the main reason was lack of notability, and the result of the debate was no consensus. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC), 00:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It was not already deleted once; that was just a redirect. Have a look at the debate, or total lack thereof. Derex 18:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G10 and salt page; attack page on Joe Scarborough. Also possibly speedy delete as G4 recreation of deleted material.--Aaron 18:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC) (Modifying vote per Glen S's recommendation below.) --Aaron 19:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• G10 does not apply here per derex above. You may want to change your comment or it may be disregarded by closing admin Glen 04:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as it was already deleted. Still non-notable person in a non-notable event. Delete per Fred Bauder below. --Tbeatty 18:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Again speedy delete does not apply here so per above you may want to change your comment or it may be disregarded Glen 04:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and it's not eligible for a speedy; no article on her has ever been AFD'd; see comment at top. Derex 18:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Attack pages are deletable by an admin on sight. --Aaron 18:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Absolutely, which is why this one is not eligible. Give me a break, it may be misguided, but it's not an attack page. Further, I find the nom's arguments to be wholly unpersuasive and irritating in tone; nom seems to view AFD as a POV battleground and routinely spams to friendlies on votes. This one, for example, was pre-discussed among a little group of early voters. That last said, and I've been wanting to comment on this longstanding abuse of the AFD process for a long time, this person has no notability beyond Scarborough. So, there ought to be about 3 lines in his article mentioning the hubbub. Derex 18:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a pre-meeting on the AfD? And I missed it? Rats. That means my sockpuppets Rex/Merecat/Morton/172/TDC/MONGO/Tom/Aaron missed it too. <that was a joke for the humor impaired folks> --Tbeatty 03:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, don't be coy T. You even alerted me of the listing[2], because you knew my opinion. You are quite prolific enough by yourself without imaginary socks, anyway. The repeated behavior of the nom here is the problem, not you. I've seen him spam as many as 50 friendlies (based off conservative user-boxes) over an AFD. Derex 09:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually I alerted you because you had previously expressed interest in voting delete before the AfD and I thought that was a noble thing that you had done. --Tbeatty 17:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, you knew what I thought, because you had asked me to nominate it for AFD and I refused. That's not the point, but it is indicative. I am here participating because of private communications off the talk page; a one-off or two is no big deal, but it's becoming systemic at least with this nom. The point is that there has recently been a tremendous amount of pre-discussion of AFD's among politically like-minded editors, crucially this is off the article talk pages. These voters are quickly informed of the nom's and swarm in to create a snowball before disinterested editors ever have a look. I don't like it. If an article truly deserves to go, it will go without a lot of lobbying and spamming and otherwise un-wiki techniques. Derex 23:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom, merge relevant material into other articles. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with this nomination. We have to be careful of what is presented in this encyclopedia. This project has already been slammed by Kim Komando per this statement. We need to protect ourselves with presenting only proper articles. Therefore, delete. JungleCat talk/contrib 19:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Expunge i vote delete per all above !paradigm! 19:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)!paradigm![reply]
• Delete She is only notable because her death was used by unscrupulous mud-slingers as fodder for scurrilous aspersions. Fred Bauder 19:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G10, protect from recreation - Article appears to attack as many as three living persons. The last source in the article links to a probable copyright violating copy of a newspaper article, hosted on POAC, which is a left-wing blog that has an entire attack sectionon this subject. - Crockspot 20:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see some criticism of the medical examiner in the article. Which other 2 persons are attacked? Any unsupported or POV statements, or statements violating WP:BLP should be edited out.Edison 07:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a serious question? Try Scarborough and Harris. Crockspot 19:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rewrite any violating data. Widespread media citations warrant inclusion. · XP · 21:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable with 862 Google hits and numerous newspaper articles. The story also had a bearing on Katherine Harris's present senate race, per the article. A healthy woman in her 20's, working in a congressman's office, was found dead from a whack on the head, and the medical examiner decided she fainted from an undiagnosed heart problem (she was a runner) and fell and hit her head on the desk? The Florida papers raised serious questions about the lack of openness in failure to release the records of the investigation, and about the medical examiner's past. Keep this along with the Chandra Levy article. Many of the Delete votes have the apparent subtext that nothing casting doubt on right-wing media figures is allowed in Wikipedia, a policy I have not been able to find in the rulebook. Edison 21:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that the article has led you to believe that it "casts doubt" on a right-wing figure is exactly why it should be deleted. There is no fact that should have led you to that conclusion but the intention of the article is to do that and is exactly why it should be deleted. --Tbeatty 04:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well said. It seems like editors have regularly manipulated the wording of this article to make it sound like there is room for doubt. (Note: I'm on the left wing and don't much care for Scarborough) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-10-15 17:13Z
• Speedy Delete Speedy Delete (but with no prejudice towards recreation if supported by the dispute resolution process in the Joe Scarborough article) per WP:BLP. Also note that the husband of the subject of this article requested it's deletion. See Talk:Lori_Klausutis#Why_write_this_article, diff — Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC), 01:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The husband of the subject requesting its deletion is not relevant to the process. *Sparkhead 01:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject may not be a living person, but the husband is. WP:BLP does have legal concerns, but if it weren't ethical as well, it probably wouldn't be as strict. The letter of WP:BLP may not apply, but the spirit does. The article may not affect the actual subject of the article, that person being dead, but it does affect other people - those who cared (care?) about the subject, and other living people mentioned in the article. It can affect those people's lives, and it is affecting some of their lives. Two of those people have attempted to intervene in the articles in ways WP:BLP suggests subjects of articles might. The fact that the husband is not in fact the subject of the article does not make the impact on his life any less real.

  Regarding my change in vote, I hope that the article is deleted and not recreated, but dispute resolution, which is already occuring for the Joe Scarborough article, is probably a better outlet for deciding that than AfD. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 03:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Edison and XP. The article is also well referenced. Mujinga 23:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Again with the apparently bad faith AfD's. A simple review of what was claimed to be the first deletion nomination of the article wasn't an AfD, but an RfD. If you're going to propose AfD's, let's try to get the history correct. Not voting yet, but what is Chandra Levy's claim to fame if not for Gary Condit? *Sparkhead 23:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not bad faith. It's an easy mistake to make if you don't actually read the discussion, which would be quite likely if you just read the note on Essjay's talk page. Besides, the redirect deletion does mention the Joe Scarborough controversy: if anything, actually having it in the article, instead of just redirecting to Joe Scarborough, is worse. Also, it was technically an AfD that should have been an RfD, but was deleted anyways. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I read the discussion. An article didn't exist at the time of the delete. Since the item in the Aug05 AfD was a redirect, handled as an RfD in an AfD discussion, this article was never deleted. It was an AfD that resulted in a deletion of a redirect. A little intellectual honesty would be appreciated. *Sparkhead 00:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There's not much point in posting to Essjay's talk page about anything; he hasn't made a single edit anywhere on Wikipedia in two months. --Aaron 01:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant that Morton devonshire might not have read the discussion. In any case, although "recreation of a deleted article" is not a good justification for deletion here, the *fD still has historical interest, especially considering it does mention the Joe Scarborough controversy. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see a lot of merit in this article, but I would like to keep the history accurate. This may be the third nomination, but is only the second time the article itself is being considered for deletion, and it was never deleted. Just a nuance, but it is more accurate. Catch me on my talk page if you want to discuss it a bit more, no use cluttering this up. *Sparkhead 00:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is no logical comparison between this article and Chandra Levy. Gary Condit was having an affair with Levy, and lied about it during much of the search for her. There is zero evidence that Scarborough and Klausutis had anything other than a standard employer-employee relationship, and he has an iron-clad alibi that proves he was uninvolved in her death. --Aaron 00:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There's plenty of logical comparison. A young woman worker of a congressman died with no known witnesses present. How often does that happen? Also note the very recent Miami Herald mention of the incident with respect to Katherine Harris, which is not a small town paper. *Sparkhead 01:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No one knows how many times it happens because no one cares. It's not notable. But people die in the workplace for natural causes all the time. That's all that happened here. And the smear is trying to compare someone who was murdered and that's having an affair with a congressman vs. someone who is unknown to a congressman that dies of natural causes. 'Female' and 'dead' is about the only comparison but the innuendo is something more and is a violation of BLP.--Tbeatty 03:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You can generalize to "any workplace" but when something happens related to a Congressman, whether it's tax evasion or death of a worker, it is more notable than it happening to Joe Public. *Sparkhead 12:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There has been plenty of discussion of this controversy in the Joe Scarborough article. See Talk:Joe Scarborough. There was a request for mediation to MedCab, and there is discussion of bringing it up to Arbitration. WP:BLP even links to Joe Scarborough. User:Joe Scarborough attempted to modify the article to remove slanderous content and replaced it with an official bio, presumed to be a copyright violation. For an example, see this diff. There was an RFC accusing User:Joe Scarborough (talk | contribs) of being an impersonator. Why not limit all of this controversy to just one article, Joe Scarborough, and delete this one? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination.--MONGO 03:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge relevant material, if any, into other articles. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Essentially an indiscriminate collection of innuendo and non-sequiturs intended to fabricate an attack page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Flawed Nomination contradicts itself in the first sentence. You can't argue WP:BLP regarding non-public figure. The non-public figure is deceased. *Sparkhead 12:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not the subject of the article, it's some of the other people in the article - mostly Joe Scarborough, but also Michael Berkland, and possibly a few other people. It's not necessarily impossible to cover this material in a way consistent with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, but it belongs on the Joe Scarborough article, where there are plenty of interested editors who want to make that happen. (Unless, of course, it is decided through the dispute resolution process that the best way to meet WP:BLP and WP:NPOV is to put it on this article.) Take that all that out, and you have maybe one or two uninteresting paragraphs in this article. Even so, the husband of the subject of the article requested its deletion - showing mercy would do no harm. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The BLP is joe scarborough and the problem is false light defamation. You have already stated that you believe that this article reflects negatively on scarborough and that is prima facie evidence of "false light" as there is no reason Klausutis' death should reflect anything on Scarborough. --Tbeatty 22:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The first deletion reason is not applicable in this case: "Pursuant to WP:BLP regarding Non-Public Figures". Other BLP issues may be in play, but to focus on a non-public figure BLP violation is not correct. *Sparkhead 22:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  We can delete it for reasons other than the reasons listed in the nomination... assuming sufficient consensus, of course. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that's why I mentioned other issues may be in play. *Sparkhead 01:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Joe Scarborough. This has been used as a smear against him often enough that a source of verifiable information on it would be valuable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In fairness to Scarborough, especially given that Katherine Harris reportedly brought this up in her campaign, if it is shown to be a tragic but non-notable death unrelated to Scarborough, the facts that show that to be so should be laid out somewhere, and it seems too much space would be required in the Scarborough article for an adequate treatment, which it does not have at present. For comparison, the death of Marilyn Monroe (certainly notable) was officially ruled to be suicide by drug overdose, but there is another long article Death of Marilyn Monroe about it being suspicious and possibly due to murder, far more tabloid than anything in this article. The Vince Foster article bandies about tabloid theories that he was murdered by the Clintons, despite official findings of suicide, so there are precedents that a coroner's ruling does not prevent conspiracy theories being discussed in a NPOV way on Wikipedia.Edison 07:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge This is only notable as inasmuch as it applies to Scarborough. Let's make it a section in his article - the article itself is not that long and it's well-done, so it should be an easy no-brainer merge. --Gwern (contribs) 17:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is already covered adequately in Scarborough's article. --Tbeatty 22:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. This article exists only to throw up piles of FUD. It's one of the worst examples of tabloid gossip. Having a lot of sources and Google hits is not what is being argued here; it's the quality/purpose of the content that is in question. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-10-15 17:13Z
• Keep and de-POV - The whole affair is indeed FUD, but the FUD itself has become notable. There should be a separate article to keep this stuff out of the Joe Scarborough article. --Bletch 22:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The only issue at question here is notability. WP:BLP#Non-public_figures does not apply. The Moore actions, Scarborough talking about it on Imus, the Vanity Fair article and subsequent apology, and the fact that Katherine Harris recently mentioned it to potential campaign donors which warranted coverage in the Miami Herald all support notability. As long as the page sticks to facts and makes clear that Scarborough was not found to be guilty of anything involving the death, which it does seem to do at the moment, it should be kept. *Sparkhead 22:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and remove POV and unsourced stuff. Unfortunately the fact that her death has been politicized means that we should have an article, but only one that states the official conclusion and the controversy. The detail on the coroner seems unnecessary and an attempt to tie two unrelated facts to a certain conclusion, which is not our job here. --plange 23:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are some issues with the content, but that can be edited and fixed. The article's topic itself is perfectly notable and valid. By the same rationale given, Lee Harvey Oswald could also be deleted, since he did nothing notable in his life prior to the "flurry of speculation" in 1963 surrounding his shooting of JFK and his own subsequent death. wikipediatrix 00:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. The arguments presented so far in favor of keeping this article are not remotely persuasive. The argument just prior to my vote was the argument which prompted me to actually vote, something that I very seldom do, because it is such a non sequitur. Lee Harvey Oswald has been the subject of hundreds of hours of television, dozens of books, thousands of articles. To try to use that as a comparison with the current case is... well, let's just say not persuasive to be kind.--Jimbo Wales 02:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've misinterpreted my comment, then, Jimbo. I was not literally comparing Oswald to Klausutis. Obviously, Oswald has been the subject of far more media attention and study than Klausutis, that goes without saying. The only reason I invoke Oswald's name is as a hyperbolic example, extending the logic of a previous poster's fallacy - which is basically that Klausutis didn't do anything notable before she got her share of posthumous media attention. wikipediatrix 13:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the reference by Katherine Harris alone makes the subject article-worthy - but make clear that there is no serious suspicion to be cast on Scarborough. bd2412 T 03:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable is non-notable, no matter how you spin it. Sandy 03:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jimbo Wales. Akanksha 04:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Jimbo Wales aside, she's involved in a notable event - something that drew media scrutiny and controversy, getting the likes of Michael Moore very involved. Seems relevant. -Patstuart 04:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep: Per Plange, bd2412, et al. Although the issue of the subject's unfortunate demise has caused undue strife on the Joe Scarborough article (and which, sadly, will likely continue on the new article), the arguments presented in favor of deletion are not persuasive. Ombudsman 04:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Brimba 05:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable enough. The article also violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight, with the numerous mentions of "critics". These critics are not referenced to reliable sources, but are links to editorials in a lesser-known Florida newspaper. I have tried searching "Lori Klausutis" and having difficulties finding reliable sources needed to write this article properly, in compliance with Wikipedia policies. Once we remove the POV, unsourced or improperly non-RS material, not much of an article is left. She just isn't notable enough to have needed coverage in reliable sources to merit an article. --Aude (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, not notable enough. --Peephole 06:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete If this belongs anywhere it merits a single paragraph in Joe Scarborough’s article, and only there. This is tabloid journalism, not encyclopaedic writing. Fiddle Faddle 07:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per the good reasons provided by Morton Devonshire and Jimbo Wales himself. -- Huysman 11:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fiddle Faddle and common decency. CWC(talk) 11:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Fiddle Faddle. I just read through this and followed some links and it seems to be a highly unencyclopedic page and seems to be arguing that Scarborough could have killed the person in question. Fiddle Faddle is right, this is an encyclopedia not a tabloid. --NuclearZer0 12:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the page is not really about the subject, who is not notable, but is a way to attack Joe Scarborough by innuendo. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At The article talk page I have "rewritten" the article as it should be to reflect just Klausutis. This shows precisely how she fails WP:BIO. The "rewritten" article contains just the facts, and is wholly inappropriate to be here. The current article has a load of irrelevant material which has no place in her article should it be judged to be keepable (Lordy I so hope not). Just to put it into perspective, I was also, like Scarborough, "not in Florida" when the poor lady died. But I don't merit a mention in this article either. Fiddle Faddle 12:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although the husband's request holds no weight with me (how do we know it's the husband?), I think the only notability here rests on giving undue weight to a conspiracy theory. As Timtrent said, without the unfounded speculation, there's nothing left to support her notability. It's an accusation from a small minority, and doesn't need it's own article. Certainly not one in the guise of a bio. Kafziel ^Talk 13:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.126.139.90 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC). — Possible single purpose account: 204.126.139.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..[reply]
• Delete, article really has no notability outside of the context of other articles, and most of the information in it is better suited in the articles on Scarborough, Harris, Moore, or what have you. If it ever develops notability large enough to be forked from one of these articles it should be an article on the controversy not the woman.--Rosicrucian 14:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • <ouch>. Please remember her relatives when commenting. Sandy 14:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her relatives have likely long since come to terms with her tragic and by all reasonable accounts accidental death. Save your ire for vultures like Harris.--Rosicrucian 14:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ire? Sandy 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps your insensitive and rude comment about another human being ought to be edited or refactored by an admin. It's just rude, obscene, and WILL be picked up by search engines. · XP · 15:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have removed the comment myself. It was perhaps ill-advised, but it was a direct result of my anger at dredging up this woman's death for political gain, and at allowing Wikipedia to be a vehicle for the PoV of such sentiments.--Rosicrucian 15:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Understood, agreed, don't see any "ire" in my comment, though, and none was intended: just a reminder that relatives could be reading. There's a lot of that "dredging for political gain" throughout Wikipedia bios. It needs to stop. Sandy 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please can we take this individual issue to a talk page if there is more to be said? Relatives or no relatives, this discussion on wording in a delete/keep rationale belongs off the AfD discussion. This AfD is way long enough already. Fiddle Faddle 16:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia is not dredging anything for political gain, Wikipedia is reporting on the existence of an individual whose death has been dredged for political gain by others - and it is that which makes her sufficiently noteworthy for an article - an article which debunks the myth that any competent authority has suggested that her death was anything other than an accident. bd2412 T 18:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment Then write that article. However I suspect it is only worth one paragraph in the article on each those who sought to abuse her name or death, and those who were the objects of the defamation. Her biography fails WP:BIO and thus has no place here. Fiddle Faddle 20:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Despite the brief media attention, the subject of this article doesn't have encyclopedic notability. Deli nk 18:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As I said in my previous comment, while Klausutis herself might not be notable, the (admittedly fringe) brouhaha is notable. Part of me believes that this could be under a non-biographical article (maybe like Klausutitis affair), but the problem with that approach is that it seems inappropriate to have Wikipedia coin a name for the whole brouhaha/affair/whatever. --Bletch 23:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jimbo Wales and Sandy. Madchen Hoch 01:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per Jimbo Wales. 172 | Talk 06:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Request to Admins - this seems to fall within Wikipedia:Snowball clause, in that a consensus is already wholly apparent and appears (in my own view, which may be biased since I also favour deletion) to favour deletion consistently. While Jimbo Wales's opinion carries, rightly, the same weight as any other ordinary editor, it is significant that he has posted it. But I would suggest we may well now be at the point of at least considering the snowball clause with a view to early closure. Fiddle Faddle 08:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since an AfD is NOT a vote count, there's no indication that the outcome is a foregone conclusion. wikipediatrix 13:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not counting "votes". I was looking at rationale. But I am also asking for an uninvolved admin to take a look. While I see a potential snowball they may not. Fiddle Faddle 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial, this person has done nothing of note and the whole thing is simple tittle-tattle, in very poor taste. Is there any reason for this to exist, other than to insinuate something about Joe Scarborough. Nuke it now. Guy 13:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fiddle Faddle's compression showing non-notability. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominated. AuburnPilot^Talk 19:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge back into Joe Scarborough. The article as it stands is far more focused on the reaction to her death and the impact it had on Scarborough than on the subject. Therefore they should be merged. I also agree with the common decency argument. --RicDod 19:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ramsquire 21:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Fred Bauder that "She is only notable because her death was used by unscrupulous mud-slingers as fodder for scurrilous aspersions." I don't see that as relevant, though. The statement concedes her notability. There are lots of people who become notable for bad reasons. They're still notable. (There's apparently been no attempt to delete our article about a fairly run-of-the-mill criminal named Willie Horton, who became notable only because his story was used by others for political purposes.) As for merger, I think that would be much more unfair to Scarborough, because giving this much information about the incident in his bio article would be undue weight. The one paragraph it has in his article now is about right, with a link to this article for anyone who wants to see the details (details that largely support Scarborough's position). I don't agree with the nom's argument that the presence of this article is undue weight, because that concept refers to space allocation within a more general article. The policy says, "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them." JamesMLane t c 02:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to think that a deletion here would increase the size or significance of the paragraph in the Joe Scarborough article. There is no relevant information in this article that would improve the Scarborough article. The question his will Wikipedia be the conduit for "scurrilous aspersions" or will it allow them to remain in the dark corners of the internet.--Tbeatty 04:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is already the conduit for scurrilous but notable aspersions, such as George W. Bush's deliberate lies about Saddam Hussein, or the Smear Boat Vets' deliberate lies about John Kerry. My view is that we report notable aspersions, whether they're valid or scurrilous. If your view is that we suppress information about notable but scurrilous aspersions, then you'd have Wikipedia editors deciding what's scurrilous. The Klausutis issue is clearly notable by objective standards relating to the coverage it's received. JamesMLane t c 05:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a rationale for keeping this article. It is a rationale for writing an article about the exploitation of the poor woman's death for political gain. We have to be very clear that the article text must reflect the topic of the article. Mrs K's life was non notable except to her loved ones. Her death per se was not notable either. The use and abuse some people made of her death is notable, and worthy of consideration for an article. But it is absolutely wrong to put this into an article "about Mrs K", because it is not about her. So, yes, report notable and verifiable aspersions and controversies, provided such is encyclopaedic reporting not journalistic pap, and create as many relevant articles as you wish. But this article is not the article to do it with. It has genuinely no notability and should go forthwith. Write the article about the way Mrs K's untimely death was exploited by various parties, and, provided it meets the guidelines here, there will be support for that article except from politically blinded folks. Lest anyone thinks I care about US internal politics, not a chance! I'm from England. Fiddle Faddle 07:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then change the article name to Klausutitis Affair, Death of Lori Klausutis, Conspiracy theories regarding Lori Klausutis or something non biographical. --Bletch 11:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the way most Wikipedia articles are set up, readers would often be typing "Lori Klausutis" into the search box, so that seems like the best place for the article. A redirect to one of Bletch's proposed titles would be my second choice. By the same reasoning, I'd keep the Willie Horton article at Willie Horton, even though he has no notability except for how his record "was exploited by various parties". JamesMLane t c 13:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is perhaps an argument for a redirect, but the fact remains that if it remains in its current namespace, it is a biographical article.--Rosicrucian 15:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Edison (many paragraphs above). Calwatch 08:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Michael Moore notable. And why does Wikipedia have a moral responsibility to some random IP? We have a moral responsibility to reflect that which is verifiable, true, and present - but not, surely, a moral responsibility to act as peoples' therapists. Who are we to decide what is right for people? What next? Censorship? I find this idea that an encyclopedia has a responsibility to anyone except that which is both notable and true very dangerous. Moreschi 11:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article is less about the subject than it is about the abhorrent use of her death for political gain. At most, merge the relevant information into the Joe Scarborough article. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That would raise the issue of what's relevant. The second paragraph is purely biographical -- age, education, family. It seems to me that everything else in the article has some relevance to Scarborough. Would you clutter his article with all this detail, or would you expunge the information from Wikipedia entirely? Neither solution would serve our readers' interests. Also, as a practical matter, the wrangling between advocates of those two approaches would waste a lot of editorial time and energy. Having a separate article makes it easier to keep the incident in perspective in the Scarborough article JamesMLane t c 15:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I believe your logic to be flawed. If it is about Scarborough, then it is right for it to be in Scarborough's article. If you want an article about the abuse of her good name, then it should be in an article about that abuse. In neither case does it have a place in this lady;s biography, which remains wholly non notable in our terms. She fails WP:BIO; as such her article, her biographical article should go. As for expunging the information, if placed in a correct article, and if it is in itself notable and verifiable, then it stays. If not then it goes. We do not change the rules because this is thought by some to be a special case. Fiddle Faddle 16:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I don't think everything about Scarborough should be in Scarborough's article, because of the clutter factor. Other than the second paragraph of this article, which is purely biographical, is there anything in this article that you think should not be in the Scarborough article? JamesMLane t c 17:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clutter? That is what section headings are for. There is no clutter factor. If it is about Scarborough and meets among other things WP:RS, put it neatly in Scarborough's article. Or put it in the accuser's article, or put it in a new article about the disgraceful incident and put a See also in each. But the scandal etc had nothing to do with the Mrs K ecept that her death was abused in this manner. And Mrs K is not notable within our guidelines, so this article should go. Fiddle Faddle 17:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Her death had nothing to do with scarborough either. It was "unscrupulous mud-slingers" trying to link the two. The mudslingers are adequately covered in Scarborough's article and elsewhere. But repeating their "scurrilous aspersions" such as details about the coroner's or Scarboroughs marital status or even mentioning Chandra Levy as comparison is beneath encyclopedic and puts Wikipeida in the role of "mud slinger". Stopping false light libel is not censoship. --Tbeatty 17:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Indrian 16:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Utterly absurd rational for nominating this for deletion, part of a long series of suspect AfD noms. Undue weight is an invalid rationale as has been pointed out, policy states: "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them." The undue weight provision would apply were this subject treated at this length in the Joe Scarborough article, where it would overwhelm the rest of the article. This article is sourced and deals with a subject discussed in the mainstream media by many, including Scarborough himself. We delete articles that libel the subject, we don't delete articles because we fear that sourced, verified facts might cause someone, somewhere to get the wrong idea about someone. It is not an "attack" or a "smear" (and is insulting to the editors who believe that such information should stay in Wikipedia to claim that it is such) and in fact the article flat out exonerates Scarborough from any wrongdoing - as it should - as he was not even in the state at the time. When Katherine Harris wanted to use the death to attempt to smear Scarborough, as was widely reported in the media, it was universally regarded as a desperate, undignified act by a rudderless and failing campaign. Everyone who hears this - except Michael Moore - seems to think better of Scarborough, not worse. So it's bizarre for us to treat this matter as some sort of insidious thought virus that makes everyone think Scarborough is some evildoer. And it would be bizarre for us to delete something that's been reported on plenty of times in plenty of contexts (the original incident, the Imus show, Moore's attack, Katherine Harris, etc.) and would meet no objections regarding notability were the matter not politically charged. Gamaliel 17:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here's what Gamaliel said about the creation of the Lori Klausutis article in April of this year: "The Klausutis article (and I have no idea why you are bringing it up here) is a direct consequence of your edit warring on the Joe Scarborough article. I'd prefer the information be in the JS article myself, but I don't feel like arguing about it for another year. Gamaliel 05:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)"[3] Morton devonshire 18:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's your point? You've nominated it for deletion, not for merging, and the article has expanded to the point where a seperate article is probably warranted to avoid the "undue weight" problem. Gamaliel 18:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 19 April 2006 entry speaks for itself. Morton devonshire 18:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe you could give us the cliff notes version. Gamaliel 18:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The information that exonerates scarborough (as if he needed to be exonerated) is already in the scarborough article. The information is covered adequately there. There is no reason to maintain a biography on a non-notable person that died from natural causes in order to keep alive vague, unsubstantiated claims of wrongdoing. "Undue weight" in this context is that 80% of the article about this person's life is about what happened after her death and how it related to a person we cannot even establish that she knew in any way other than being employed in a remote office. --Tbeatty 18:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "reason" to maintain it is the same reason we maintain anything, as a historical record of notable events. There is sufficient media coverage in multiple contexts to justify the article. Gamaliel 18:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not according to Jimbo Wales. See above. Morton devonshire 18:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then Jimbo and I will have to disagree on the matter. Gamaliel 18:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, Jimbo Wales is the creator of Wikipedia, and if he wants to delete it, he can. But he voted. and his vote was solely in reaction to vote above his. There should at very least be a mention of this somewhere on the 'pedia, even if it's stuck in the Scarborough article. But it seems she merits her own article. It's not like we're making an article about the band who played for the local high-school talent show; she does have notability. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, Gamaliel see this article as having merit because there is something awry with the person who nominated it? Doesn't matter who nominated it, doesn't matter if the nominator is the devil incarnate, we have a community that judges, not a nominator. It is very simple, this article is biographical. It contains stuff that is about something else entirely. That stuff has to go. Once that stuff is deleted there is nothing remotely notable in the article because it is about an ordinary lady who died in her office. Deeply unfortunate, horrible for her family, and not notable for anyone in the world except them. The scandal after her death is absolutely nothing to do with her biography, except that, should an article be written about the scandal and should her biographical article survive, it merits a wikilink in a one line statement along the lines of "Certain parties attempted to make political capital about the [[death of Mrs K]]. How hard can it possibly be to grasp that an article must be about the "thing in the title" and not about some other stuff? The other stuff goes in its own article. If you feel strongly enough about it, write the other article. The let this one die in peace. Fiddle Faddle 19:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, Gamaliel see this article as having merit because there is something awry with the person who nominated it? That would be true if you stopped reading at the first sentence I wrote. Gamaliel 19:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utterly, utterly non-notable person. Jesus. Herostratus 18:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Most of the delete-sayers (that is, the few who aren't simply saying "non-notable" and leaving) seem to be of the opinion that Klausutis doesn't need an article because she did nothing notable apart from dying, and garnering media attention after death. Seems to me this is sufficient, but consider some of these articles on Wikipedia: Jean McConville was a housewife whose only notability was that the IRA killed her. Stephen Tibble and Jerry McCabe were cops whose only claim to fame is, again, being killed by the IRA. Gillian Clark is apparently notable only for being killed in Iraq. Rachel Levy was a child whose only notability comes from being a victim of a bomber in Jerusalem. Behnaz Mozakka died in the London subway bombings. And check out Jackie Pflug, Tara Whelan, Nitzan Mendelson, and many more. Wikipedia is filled with articles about such people who only claim to fame is that they died, and frankly, I find Klausutis far more notable (media coverage, conspiracy theories, celebrity/politician involvement, Michael Moore's involvement) than any of these examples I've just named. wikipediatrix 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we pointing to other articles that could be deleted to justify the existence of this one? Where does that lead this discussion? Nowhere. Ramsquire 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, then they should also go away...we are here to discuss the merits of this deletion, not why other articles haven't been deleted.--MONGO 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is filled with articles that should be deleted or merged. My problem with this one is its use to attack another person by innuendo. Wikipedia is full of tedious lists too, but I mostly leave them alone. If we had a list of Liberal pundits who have no alibi for gruesome murders I would delete it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the key words "relative lack of media coverage" from the Lori Klausutis article. It is not our job to make media coverage where there is none. Stephen Tibble got a posthumous medal and a memorial. Rachel Levy got coverage by Newsweek and CBS. Many of the others Wikipediatrix mentions should also be deleted for non-notability. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Joe Scarborough: Under WP:BIO, she's notable only (if at all) for the accusations that Joe Scarborough killed her, however, under WP:BLP, this level of coverage is grossly inappropriate, especially since there's no evidence that the rumor is true. The one paragraph on this subject in Joe Scarborough is more than enough to meet any encyclopedic need. TheronJ 21:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Hard redirect: Yes, I know that a redirect is technically a keep; there really ought to be some way to put in a redirect that can't be changed without admin involvement. In any case, I think the existing one paragraph in Joe Scarborough is enough. Wikipedia isn't the right venue to keep hope alive that somehow this will turn out to be something other than a (non-notable) natural death. John Broughton | Talk 22:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there is a way to do what you suggest, and that is indeed called a "hard redirect." It involves making the redirect, then protecting the page.--Rosicrucian 23:11, 18 October 2006 (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.