[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Boots

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Much as I am consternated by the result going against the (presumptive) wishes of the family, I agree that BDP does not stretch far enough to cover this article. That said, and while I am closing this discussion as no consensus, I would nevertheless recommend that the content here be merged with the disaster's article with a redirect to the appropriate section. There is no policy that compels us to do so, but it seems to be that common decency and compassion should encourage it. — Coren (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Boots

[edit]
Green Boots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Forwarding this nomination by request. I'm procedurally neutral.

Marginally notable corpse known best for the location of his body. WP:BDP states, on the applicability of BLP outside living people: "However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends . . . is covered by this policy". I argue that an article about a corpse, which includes a photograph of said corpse, in fact has those implications for any such living relatives. And given what I perceive as marginal notability limited essentially to this fellow's death, I argue BLP1E (in view of BDP) applies.

If the general information on the 1996 disaster (which makes up more than half the text of the article, but says nearly nothing about Paljor) isn't duplicated elsewhere, I'd have no objection to appropriate merging/reframing/what have you of that information. j⚛e deckertalk 07:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amending my !vote, see below. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote per my comments here and the ticket details below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG with multiple independent reliable sources discussing the subject, most recently a day ago by the Smithsonian. The corpse is so well known that the nearby cave is named Green Boots' Cave. Attempts to recover the body have further cemented notability.
A merge to 1996 Mount Everest disaster is not recommended because it is not certain that Green Boots belonged to that expedition. As the article states, while the body is presumed to belong to Tsewang Paljor, it is by no means definitely him. WP:BLP1E is inapplicable here because the subject is not a living person. Similarly, it's a stretch to apply WP:BDP, as it is meant for recent deaths and suicides and is reserved for material that is contentious or questionable or for individuals who may still be alive. Paljor died over 15 years ago and applying WP:BDP here would be an overly broad interpretation, tantamount to censorship. Perhaps concerns over implications for any potential living relatives can be addressed through editing the article instead of outright deletion. Gobōnobō + c 20:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability beyond question in my opinion. Many people with an interest in Everest climbing history would have heard of Green Boots. The well known incident of David Sharp involves Green Boots Cave. Oppose merge per Gobonobo's comment and add that even if the body is determined to be that of Tsewang Paljor, the other members of the Indo-Tibetian Border Police expedition have their own articles. Paljor would be at least as notable as those individuals, though admittedly this is an 'other stuff exists' argument on my part. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 23:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have also listed the photograph of the corpse at FFD. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But I do wish there was a larger article to merge this with, there's over 200 more bodies up there and some probably more notable. Cowicide (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: no opinion about keep or delete, but if this is kept, I'll strongly advocate moving back to the proper name Tsewang Paljor. This article is about a person, not about a corpse. "Green Boots" may be common, but is still nothing more than an informal and irreverent nickname for what are, after all, a real human being's mortal remains. We don't write about human remains as if they were mere objects. If this guy deserves an article, he deserves an article as a person, not as a piece of ice that serves as a macabre "landmark" among climbers. The page was recently moved to the present title on grounds of "common name", but that doesn't apply to human beings in this way – a human being has a right to be treated under their real name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, I disagree with you since I moved the article. :) But beyond that, I don't think WP:V allows us to move it to that name when the source naming him says he is "presumably Tsewang Paljor". It doesn't seem to accord with WP:V to assert positively that he is this person when he hasn't been positively identified. Beyond that, the living people in this case would prefer to draw less attention to him, not more. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • One other factor in terms of the naming. While it's my preference that the article simply be deleted (I still haven't seen two sources that offer more than 2-3 sentences of coverage to the person, and I feel that BDP has some weight here), or, in lieu of that, at least the photograph removed, there is an additional problem, in my view, with including a photograph of a corpse on an article named "Green Boots". See the Wikimedia resolution supporting the principle of least astonishment. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I noted on the OTRS ticket, I have some doubts about its deletion under WP:N (due to the icon), but I'm sensitive to the way his family must feel. :( The changes I made to the article were done certainly with that in mind. Sorry for not noticing that the image was non-free; it didn't even occur to me it might be. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep This article is important and improves wikipedia. The image doesn't show much more than a boot, it's not as if the corpse image was phantasmagoric. The article is very informational and interesting. I also agree with Cowicide's thoughts. There should actually be more articles, or a larger article covering these bodies. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Can someone explain to me how the BLP (or BDP) aspect has a bearing on this AfD? The BLP policy doesn't mandate the deletion of relevant, well-sourced material, except in cases of marginal notability, upon the subject's request. So if it was Paljor's family that requested this article's deletion, that needs to be clarified. If not, then BLP concerns aren't really relevant. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer Fair question. As Moonriddengirl has previously noted the existence of an OTRS ticket, and given the original request, I feel comfortable saying that I responded to said ticket from a family member of the subject of the article there, and that deletion was requested. I apologize for the nomination obfuscation, but in general, OTRS agents are required to maintain privacy for those whose tickets they're working, this creates somewhat awkward conflicts at times. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. In that case, I'll !vote delete, out of respect for the family. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that "they can get..." as that living people who through no fault of their own find themselves with an unwanted and upsetting article here can politely request its removal, and we consider it on its merits. Still more tricky is the WP:BDP case, as here, where family make such a request. It behoves us to consider it sympathetically. If it was the president we'd likely refuse as it'd be in the public interest. If it's you, me or John Doe I hope we'd agree. That's my understanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not trying to be insensitive, but if the subject is notable, I think there should be an article. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No implication. Just to be aware that whereas 99% of the time, AfD is all about notability, in this rare case the desires of the millions of silent readers to know the notable must be weighed against the desires of the family. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Appropriate Target: I would be in favor of removing the photo (which may be deleted anyway), but we have many articles on unfortunate notable deaths, I would suggest most every day some are created, and these deaths caused real pain to living people. That is why we have a responsibility to be accurate and respectful in our writing, but does not extend to a duty to erase reference to these subjects.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:36, 7 December 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Green_Boots&oldid=1174360025"