List of Major League Baseball players suspended for domestic violence – Draft restored. This is a bit confusing, but it went like this: the "list of players investigated for ..." was deleted at AfD, then recreated as a copy-paste from a Google cache with some modifications as "list of players suspended for ...", and then speedily deleted as WP:G4. The nomination is unclear as to which of the two deletions it contests, but from what I gather from the discussion here most people would endorse the AfD but give the list in its new form as "list of players suspended for ..." at least a chance at a new AfD. Even if one assumes that we have no consensus for that outcome here, this means that the AfD closure is endorsed by default and the speedy deletion is overturned by default. Accordingly, the draft is restored and can be renominated at AfD by anybody who feels like it. Sandstein 07:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
After existing for at least a year or two, the page "List of Major League Baseball players investigated for domestic violence" was deleted last week via AfD because some people felt it was unfair to list players who were merely investigated but not suspended, even though news reports of the allegations and investigations are listed on the players' individual Wikipedia pages. (Every player on the list has his own Wikipedia page. This is not a list of non-notable people who had been accused and investigated but ultimately faced no penalty.) The vote was 10 delete, 4 keep, and 4 move, which the closing admin somehow interpreted as a consensus for deletion, even though 44% of participants wanted the page kept in some form.
In any event, since the page was deleted on the grounds that it was unfair to have a list of those merely accused and not actually suspended, I recreated the page at "List of Major League Baseball players suspended for domestic violence" today including only the players who have been suspended by MLB. Every player on the list already has his own Wikipedia page on which his domestic violence suspension is mentioned, so if that's not a BLP violation, it's unclear how a list of such players could be a BLP violation. But for some reason, User:Muboshgu speedily deleted the new page within seconds, before I even had a chance to contest it. It makes no sense that a list of those suspended could somehow be a BLP violation when the information is already, and uncontroversially, listed on the BLPs themselves. At minimum, this page should be restored and then subjected to AfD, since it's now a different list, at a different URL, than the list that was deleted last week. Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It isn't entirely clear whether the filer is appealing the deletion of the original article or appealing the G4. This is a poorly worded filing. A TROUT to the filer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if this is an appeal of the Delete. There is no policy-based argument for saying that the closer should have supervoted to Keep. With 56% saying Delete, Delete is a valid closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and List at AFD if this is an appeal of the G4. Like all speedy deletions, G4 should be non-controversial, and there is a valid argument that the subject is sufficiently different. It needs deleting, but it needs AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the speedy deletion, but yeah, this title change (and corresponding narrowing of focus) addresses the concerns of the vast majority of those !voting for deletion at the AfD. overturn speedy. If someone wants to list it, they can. I'd endorse the AfD deletion if that's the question. Hobit (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the afd was valid, on which I have no opinion, then this G4 deletion plainly was. The recreated article was a self-admitted cut and paste of a google cache of the deleted one, completely unedited except to remove the lead and two of the fourteen individual entries. (And by completely unedited, I mean completely unedited - wikilinks were rendered as <a href="/wiki/BLP_article_name" title="BLP article name">BLP article name</a>, and the references section was eighteen entries like this: —Cryptic05:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
It was "completely unedited" because the page was deleted about 10 seconds after creation. I was first trying to salvage the non-controversial information before making further edits, but never got the chance. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy There was a weak consensus at AfD that although a list of all players investigated would be inappropriate, a list of only players suspended would be acceptable. It should not have been deleted within seconds, before anyone had a time to clean it up. However, at this point it may be easier to simply restore the first deleted article, remove the players who weren't suspended, and move the article to the new title. Regardless of how it's done, the article exclusively fo players suspended should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This business of copy/pasting from a google cache is a practice that we can't possibly allow. In this case it was done for good reasons, but if we do allow it then we're setting a precedent that could enable end-runs around "delete" decisions at the AfD. What this user should have done is to ask for userfication or draftification, make the necessary changes and then move back to mainspace with the article history intact. Deleting the history doesn't just contravene the terms of use. Giving people credit for their contributions is literally the only thing Wikipedia does for its volunteers, so anything that hides article histories is insidious. If there wasn't a speedy deletion criterion that applied, then there should have been. Give that sysop the barnstar of his choice.—S MarshallT/C 12:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the objection to reusing non-controversial information in list form. It's not like a biography was plagiarized. And I had probably compiled about half of that list myself on the old page. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation with narrowed scope/title. Making this suspended instead of investigated addresses the concerns of most of the delete arguments from the AfD. But, yeah, this copy-paste from google is a disaster, both because it violates our attribution rules, and because it's going to be more work to make readable than it's worth. Restore the deleted page and work from there to delete the offending material. WP:REVDEL of the elided sections might even be appropriate to address the WP:BLP concerns. -- RoySmith(talk)18:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's hilarious. Instead of using the Google cache to salvage the code, like I did, you used your admin powers to salvage the code. Why play games like this? All you're doing is wasting people's time. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's even more hilarious than your last reply. Yesterday, you insisted this information could not be restored because of the consensus in that other AfD. You're flailing here. Why not just admit you made a mistake with the speedy delete and stop wasting everyone's time? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft is fine. Given the deleting admin seems willing to restore it, I see no reason to drag this out for the full seven days and they can just do so now. Smartyllama (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft is okay with me as going into article space for a possible AFD. I don't know whether I would approve or decline it as a reviewer, but that is doubly not the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do see plenty of reason to "drag this out". This amounts to overturning the AFD - which did, after all, consider a move to this title and reject it - and DRV doesn't normally do early closes, for good reason.Also, this draft doesn't (currently) attribute its text, and still won't meaningfully do so if all the currently-deleted revisions at the "investigated" list are restored but revdelled, as proposed above. —Cryptic00:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oyi. #1 I'm not at all certain we need to delrev all this (though I think we should). If, as claimed, all those listed in the article as being simply investigated had that same information in their articles, I don't think having it in the article's history is a BLP problem that requires delrev. That said, it's not an area I claim to know a lot about, and I'd certainly think doing so would be good if it's within the guidelines for using delrev. #2 I'll note that who creates the article doesn't matter. We really don't care. The speedy appears to be in good faith. The copy-and-paste was in good faith. The speedy was probably a bad call, the cut-and-paste certainly was. That's fine, let's move forward. #3 I don't see any reason why this needs to stay in draft space. The speedy, as a G4, was wrong. The draft overcomes the G1 issues. So let's just move that to main space and let anyone who wants to send it to AfD. Hobit (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually endorse both the AfD and the speedy deletion as both were well within procedural grounds. The WP:G4 was sufficiently identical from what I can tell from the discussion here. In terms of the remedy, if consensus decides to restore this, I do think a delrev is necessary, and I'd also recommend sending it to an immediate AfD because of issues regarding BLP and WP:OR. SportingFlyerT·C21:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How can there be BLP issues when the BLPs in question already include mention of the suspensions in question, which, in every case, resulted in literally hundreds of news reports around the globe? Could someone, anyone, please explain that to me? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The applicable guidelines are WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Obviously, there's a judgement call that needs to be made about whether a ball player is a public figure. Some certainly are, but I'd argue that most aren't. For the sake of argument, let's assume we're talking about somebody that falls into WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. The rule there is, include only material relevant to the person's notability. So, if somebody's notable for being a baseball player, the fact that they may or may not have been involved with domestic violence is not part of what they're notable for, and we shouldn't cover it. If the subject is a notable figure, there's more latitude given: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. You're making the argument that since the domestic violence aspect was covered by hundreds of news reports, that's part of what made them notable. That's not an unreasonable argument, but the consensus at the AfD didn't go that way. -- RoySmith(talk)03:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe people who are notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles are already "public figures", especially sportspeople. Eagles24/7(C)13:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the supplemental WP:LOWPROFILE: A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. I do not believe Major League Baseball players fit this category. Eagles24/7(C)17:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There are a large number of baseball players who are only visible during their baseball career, if they're visible during their baseball career at all. There's a clear distinction between Randy Johnson and Robby Hammock in terms of being a public figure. SportingFlyerT·C17:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So they were visible during their baseball careers and these investigations/suspensions happened during those visible years, even if you wanted to split up when exactly these people were "public figures" in their lives. Eagles24/7(C)18:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. The difference between this list and being suspended for say using steroids is that the latter is firmly grounded in their playing career. However this list means a player has been suspended for potentially criminal, non-sporting related activities after a league investigation. It's not clear that the BLP issues have been satisfied by making some small changes to the article, because the article itself may give undue weight to the suspension, which could otherwise simply be mentioned on each player's article. As a result we either need to keep this deleted or restore it/send it back for another AfD to see if there's consensus around the BLP issues. SportingFlyerT·C18:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is being suspended by Major League Baseball during a baseball player's career not directly related to their playing career? Just because one suspension is for a potentially-criminal act doesn't make it completely separate. Baseball players sign contracts with teams that include stipulations prohibiting them from engaging in what the MLB considers domestic violence, and if the league determines a player has broken his baseball contract through these stipulations they get suspended. This is article did not allege that these players were necessarily guilty in the eyes of the United States legal system, but that Major League Baseball has decided there was a breach of contract with their conduct. Eagles24/7(C)18:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're veering away from the purpose of DRV with this discussion. I'm simply noting that the article still raises a BLP issue that will need to be discussed if the article were to be restored, since there are grey lines regarding whether the players are limited public figures, what a suspension along these lines means, and whether editorially spinning this list into its own article is giving undue weight to the suspensions. SportingFlyerT·C22:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(posted earlier, didn't go through for some reason) I also have the view after reading the AfD that the difference between an investigation and an actual suspension is rather pedantic, and the BLP argument made at AfD would still be relevant at a new AfD. There were a number of !voters who noted their issue was specifically with "investigated" who may change their !vote with this article, but I'm not willing to assume that. G4 specifically notes that title changes don't matter. There's also a potential issue with synthesis/original research as the draft doesn't cite any lists, it just appears to reference each incident individually, which I don't see made in the AfD but I'd be I'm concerned about. There was nothing wrong with the close or the G4. If we restore it, I'd be in favour of sending it straight to AfD. SportingFlyerT·C17:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse/keep deleted. Consensus was clear at the AFD, and we cannot have people pulling content from Google caches as an end-run around consensus. Massive, massive BLP risk. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading, I see the article was recreated under a new title in an attempt to mend the issues caused. That's more tolerable, but I'm still not enamoured by the methods. Nevertheless, a G4 deletion wasn't proper here and I must reluctantly overturn and send to AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 a number of the AfD participants who supported deletion explicitly said that they were objecting to the fact that the list included people who had merely been investigated. As a result the AfD result doesn't apply to a page which consists of people who were suspended. Hut 8.507:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. If anything, cut the closer’s “A close call, but in the end”. The cached version is a WP:NOR-violating WP:BLP-violating shamelist. Narrow contemporary sources verifying the facts are primary sources. Recreation would require multiple quality secondary sources commenting on the set of blah. Endorse the G4, the deletion was broadly argued, and an immediate recreation is a failure of respect for the deletion discussion. Do not seek any form of re-creation for at least six months. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Swapping “suspended” for “investigated” is not a significant change. There are no justifying sources for this collective treatment of selected individuals. If there’s to be a “first”, first create the article naming no individual. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t seem to have any idea what you’re talking about. An MLB player missing half a season due to suspension is not much different than a player being investigated but missing no games? What? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR connecting MLB to domestic violence via a collection of selected cases is investigative journalism, not an encyclopedia article. Get the general sources first. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there’s “no coverage of players involved in domestic violence in any article” because the article on the topic was deleted. One minute, coverage is a BLP issue. The next minute, the lack of coverage is proof we don’t need a list. The arguments here are getting more nonsensical by the day. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cover the issue without naming people. The naming of people before there are sources to justify covering the issue generally is a sure sign you are doing a bad thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m doing a “bad thing” by compiling a list of MLB players suspended for domestic violence, when the suspensions are already discussed in depth on each suspended player’s Wikipedia page? Your argument makes no sense at all. None. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.