Talk:Kirby Delauter/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Kirby Delauter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

This was a talk page to suggest improvements to the Draft:Kirby Delauter article.

Date correction needed about construction firm

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article currently states "Founded in 1995 by Delauter's grandfather, Willie F. Delauter, and his father, Russell Delauter, he bought the company in 1993." Either 1995 or 1993 is wrong date. The footnoted source returns an error when I try to access it. --do ncr am 22:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The date should be 1955 according to https://frederickcountymd.gov/4336/Kirby-Delauter, which says:

Kirby was raised in Frederick County, graduated from Catoctin High School and is a veteran of the U.S. Army. He worked within the construction industry and in 1993, purchased the family business W.F. Delauter and Son, Inc. The business was started in 1955 by Kirby’s grandfather, Willie F. Delauter, and his father Russell Delauter.

Thank you for catching this mistake. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter

Latest comment: 9 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

Discussions:

The admins involved cannot agree among themselves about where to discuss the article draft. One admin suggested an informal AfD. When this was taken to AfD, the closing admin then suggested taking this back to DRV. We've been discussing this since January 2015. Three months!

I'd rather not take this to yet another noticeboard for further discussion. This has been discussed enough already.

Would an admin move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter and history merge them? There is no policy-based reason to prevent the article draft from being returned to mainspace. {{db-repost}} does not apply because the deleted content is completely different from this draft.

Pinging editors who supported retention for advice on how to proceed: Doncram (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), Bangabandhu (talk · contribs), Cavarrone (talk · contribs), Thincat (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), and BusterD (talk · contribs).

Cunard (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I asked DGG to do the history merge since he is the only admin who supported keeping in the AfD. Cunard (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It would normally better be an admin who voted to remove the article from mainspace.,or was uninvolved. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you remove the protection? There is no basis for the protection and given one admin just put it there, I don't see why one can't remove it. Hobit (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I of course support the move. I've also complained about the moving venue to the closer of the AfD. Hobit (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Please allow this move! How unfortunate that Wikipedia bureaucratic process has prevented readers from learning and editors from building on a solid contribution. Bangabandhu (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I just commented at closer's talk page that i think the close was fine in judging "no consensus", and I also think the unusual AFD and its NC close were helpful. But that anyone, including any one of you commenting here, can right now re-create a mainspace Kirby Delauter article by copying the draft's text over the redirect. The redirect is NO LONGER protected, and a non-admin can do the copy (and request a history-merge to be performed later). Before doing so, I myself would prefer to create an article about the Frederick County executive and articles about some of the other council-members first (so watch: Draft:Jan H. Gardner, Jan H. Gardner, Draft: Bud Otis, Bud Otis, Draft:Billy Shreve, Billy Shreve, Draft:Jerry Donald, Jerry Donald, Draft:Tony Chmelik, Tony Chmelik,Draft:M.C. Keegan-Ayer, M.C. Keegan-Ayer, Draft:Jessica Fitzwater, and Jessica Fitzwater). But y'all should have no complaints...the AFD worked to make re-start of the Delauter article in mainspace possible right now. "Keep"-voters' way forward is completely open. :) Please see my (longish) comment for my complete reasoning. sincerely --do ncr am 19:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if I jumped the gun on this - I guess protocol is creating a draft page first? Hopefully this listed will pass review. I intended to expand and add content and citations shortly. Thanks. Bangabandhu (talk)

Oh, no problem. I started Draft:Jan H. Gardner rather than simply starting Jan H. Gardner, because I am still under an editing restriction (that I should have appealed by now) that prevents me from creating mainspace non-redirect articles. I have had to go through process of creating drafts and submitting to Articles-For-Creation or benefiting from anyone else just promoting them. Thanks Bangabandhu for just going ahead and starting Jan H. Gardner. Please feel free to copy in anything useful from my draft. I appreciate that you're going at least partly along with my wish, not at all required by anything, for the Gardner article and some council-member articles to be created. --do ncr am 06:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Creating the topic directly in mainspace rather than as a draft page is fine in this case since the article's sources show that she passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

And now, Jessica Fitzwater. Would it be ironic if Delauter is the only one on the council who lacks a page, because of wikipedia bureaucracy? 18:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

DGG's extended comment here:
I suppose this might be the way to deal with it on a pragmatic basis. But I explain on your talk page why it would be better to ask someone else. (A few months ago I might have done it nonetheless, but I do not feel I can now take individual action here in a matter involving a dispute between admins). DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
DGG, do you know where we can find an uninvolved admin willing to do the move and history merge? This was listed at WP:AN for two months and no admin was willing to step forward to do that.
Sandstein wrote in response to Hobit (my bolding):
Well, I wrote in the closing statement what I believe the correct fora would be, depending on what one wishes to discuss. If you disagree with the original (speedy) deletion, that would need to be contested at WP:DRV. To add another complication: if the new draft is substantially different from the speedily deleted one, anybody can recreate the article with it, and if the only thing preventing this is the protection on the redirect, one can go to WP:RPP and ask for the protection to be lifted. But what you can't do is use AfD, a process intended to ask for the deletion of mainspace pages, to ask for the creation of an article - that turns the purpose of the process on its head. So far, the community has declined to unify all the xFD processes into a single "pages for discussion" scheme, which personally speaking might be a better idea, but as it is we're stuck with using the processes there are for their intended purposes.
All that aside, in this discussion, I can't find consensus for or against recreation. Opinions are roughly divided, and they are about such issues as BLP1E, which is a matter of individual judgment, and not something that I as the closer can decide by fiat. As always, if there's no consensus, the status quo doesn't change - meaning, in this case, that the article isn't recreated. Sorry. Sandstein 06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
While per Doncram a non-admin could copy the draft's information over to Kirby Delauter (since the protection expired), I am worried that it might be reverted, causing an edit war to ensue. It would be safer to have an uninvolved admin do the moving and history merge.
Cunard (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cunard, I already read and fully considered DGG's extensive comment and Sandstein's comment about the close, which you have now quoted, perhaps with emphasis added by you (i didn't check). My statement stands, and I believe it is fully correct. To be more clear, I am 100% sure that anyone present --well, actually maybe anybody but me because of my having an edit restriction that may apply here and prevent me from replacing the redirect -- can in 100% good faith properly re-start the Delauter article by copying in the text from Draft:Kirby Delauter. The Draft:Kirby Delauter text has in fact just been verified to be accepted, in effect. The closure by "no consensus", for this unusual or pseudo-AFD, literally established that it is not necessary for the draft to be deleted. By no means could the AFD decision have "required" the draft text to be moved to mainspace, as Sandstein correctly notes, even if everyone participating liked the draft and !voted "Keep", because that's not what AFDs do. The AFD discussion and its closure as no consensus nonetheless established perfectly well that the draft is not a wp:ATTACKPAGE, it is not entirely unreferenced, it is not obviously unbalanced in a blatant BLP-violation kind of way, and BLP1E does not so obviously apply over-whelmingly that no one could reasonably believe the text should be in mainspace. In other words, the text is okay. So copy it to mainspace. DGG's reluctance to move it to mainspace and use administrative tools to implement a history merge, is not relevant. It is fine for DGG to be uncomfortable using administrative tools upon request in a biased-type way...I gather DGG was the only administrator in the AFD in favor of "Keep", and you were selecting asking DGG to do the move because of his stated position. DGG and all other administrators need to avoid the fact and also the appearance of using administrative tools to get their way in any situation where they are "involved". He's involved, by participating in the AFD, and I fully agree with him that it would be better for an uninvolved administrator to use admin tools in any way necessary here (or to have an involved administrator use tools to implement something that is clearly not imposing their preferred way). Don't worry about history-merging, it can/should be done later.

This copy of text to mainspace has been as fully considered as is possible, over a three month period. A cooling-off "salting" has expired. The AFD closure now is icing on the cake. Any edit, any time, might conceivably be reverted by someone, but we don't stop developing the encyclopedia because that might happen. I surely do advise you not to edit-war, if there is a reversion and someone else is willing to edit-war with you by going back and forth with you restoring and they reverting the text. But your copying in the text that has been so well studied would in no way be a provocation "causing" anything. It would not be safer to have an administrator copy in the text; administrators have ability to use some tools, but have no more standing than anyone else in a content matter. It's probably sort of wrong to ask a completely uninvolved editor, administrator or not, to step in to make a potentially-controversial content edit in a topic area where they're not involved and they do not fully understand the context. Only someone who believes it is the right content edit should make it. And, if others object and want to edit-war, they should be dealt with at wp:3RR and blocked or banned. If others object and use administrative tools to speedy-delete it, they should be dealt with at ANI or arbcom and should probably have their administrator status revoked, because this text is certainly not speedy-delete-eligible. If anyone PRODs it for deletion, which can only be done once by the way, as if they think the article has just accidentally been created or is legacy from long-ago ignorant editing, I personally will be very happy to remove the prod. Any legitimate objectors can open a regular AFD. Which would leave the article in place, and would put discussion into the proper forum: AFD, where AFD-practiced editors apply good reasoning about deletions, rather than at ANI with its crisis- and mob-rule-mentality.

I would make the darn copy-in edit myself, although I do feel that creating a county executive article and some other council-member articles first would be a tad better. You don't have to agree with my preference that way. Actually right now I would be inclined to make the edit just to end this discussion. I could simply assert, anyhow, that I plan to create other council-member articles soon, and that would be almost as good. But I also have an edit restriction, which, when I think about it could arguably apply so indeed probably someone would think it applies, so, like DGG I should be cautious and avoid the appearance of violating my obligations. Enough already though. Someone please be bold and just do it. --do ncr am 06:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow all of this. An administrator needs to change the redirect from Kirby Delauter, which now points to the Frederick County, Maryland page, to his real page, right? Would that be the same thing or different from unsalting the page? I'm becoming familiar with the range of forums available for discussion. Still, I would hope that the value of restoring his page would outweigh the concern for bureaucratic protocol. Bangabandhu (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No administrator involvement needed. Go to the redirect, by going to Kirby Delauter which brings you to Frederick County but go to top and select to go back to the redirect. Hit edit. Erase the redirect text. Copy-paste in all contents from Draft:Kirby Delauter. Done. There is no bureaucratic hurdle remaining (except for me, as i have a ban in place that I have to abide by). Please just do it. --do ncr am 03:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. The redirect was previously "salted", by it being protected by an administrator so that no one but another administrator could edit it. I think a redlink can be "salted" too, i.e. protected so that no article of that title can be created by any non-admin. But the protection was set just for 3 weeks and has expired. Several parties here are too unsure of themselves to act. wp:BEBOLD? It's not a bold act particularly, as you all have tons of support and justification from long discussions and AFDs and everything that establish it is fine to try a new, different article on the person. Just do it, please, to end 3+ months of discussion. --do ncr am 03:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. I never knew that about redirects, thanks! Bangabandhu (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion now has moved to Talk:Kirby Delauter#article status and any next steps as of April 19. Cunard (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)