Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Plaxico (2nd nomination)

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

The result of the discussion was Delete without constraint on producing an essay that talks about shooting yourself in the foot that does not reference a specific incident. The consensus here is that this essay by its content and title violates BLP within the Wikipedia namespace. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Plaxico

This essay is a blatant violation of our policy on biographies of living people. It's basically using the VERY unique first name of a famous living person as a pejorative. As such, it should PROBABLY be speedy-deleted, but I'm bringing it here to foster further discussion. UnitAnode 19:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, with fire - a project-space page which endorses and encourages the ridicule of a living person. –xenotalk 19:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For further disgust, please check out the top two results for a Google search for Plaxico effect. UnitAnode 19:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed - this is not an appropriate use of project-space. –xenotalk 19:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelly Martin pretty much described exactly the problem that I have with this page here: "...the problem is that Wikipedia project space is being used to give a derogatory neologism added cultural weight. For Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia, to dispassionately report that a neologism exists may be appropriate if sufficient evidence exists for the existence of the neologism. If the "plaxico" neologism really does exist then Wikipedia can reasonably report on this in its article on Plaxico Burris and perhaps in the "list of neologisms" article. But for it to adopt the neologism as part of its community jargon is inconsistent with the sort of dispassionate detachment that ought to be part and parcel of being an encyclopedia author, especially when the neologism is not yet well-rooted in the common lexicon....". –xenotalk 13:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just see the recently-closed previous nomination for my reasons to keep. I don't see what has changed in a couple of months to warrant another deletion discussion. And if your only objection to the essay is its title, why not suggest a different one on the talk page instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater? I've said before that I don't at all oppose a reasonable name change as long as WP:PLAXICO and its variants remain a functional redirect. -- Atama頭 19:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not call it WP:ATAMA? Or perhaps you could provide people with your real name to use as the slur? (See the problem here?) UnitAnode 19:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The {{oldmfd}} was not placed on the talk page which is perhaps why UnitAnode did not notice the previous nom.
    I would settle for renaming it to "Don't shoot yourself in the foot", removing all references to a living person and deleting the PLAXICO and related redirects. –xenotalk 19:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Plaxico" meme is very strong on Wikipedia and I don't see any sign of it going away. I created the essay as a response to that phenomenon, to turn these links into bluelinks, to explain what people mean when they reference the term. I didn't invent the term, even Wikipedia didn't. Even if this essay is deleted (which wouldn't really be that big of a deal to me), "Plaxico" is going to continue to be invoked on WP:ANI and elsewhere. What do you propose we do about that, if this is truly that much of a concern? -- Atama頭 19:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose suggest to them they should be more sensitive to BLP concerns and come up with a more appropriate phrase that doesn't ridicule a living person? –xenotalk 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has hit "common usage" now, so trying to delete it now is bootless. This article utters no untruths about the gentleman. Collect (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I've never heard it outside Wikipedia. Plaxico effect <- redlink. –xenotalk 19:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No tv? (usually used as a verb, without "effect") Collect (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but admittedly I don't watch much TV, and especially not much (if any) sports. –xenotalk 19:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This shows references outside of Wikipedia in three different locations outside of Wikipedia, and there may be more (I never bothered to check). There's a link to that page within the essay already, just FYI. -- Atama頭 19:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be more comfortable if this were an appropriately sourced article than a Wikipedia-space essay that seems to take an inappropriate role in being a creator or propagator of a neologism. Mainspace that draft and redirect WP:Plaxico to mainspace. –xenotalk 19:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd rather not. I created this page to explain what people mean when they refer to WP:PLAXICO, which people were doing before this essay was even written. Unless we can redirect WP:PLAXICO to a main-space article, though I don't know if that will be accepted. If someone else wants to do that, though, be my guest. -- Atama頭 20:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    CNRs are only a real problem when they go from mainspace out. –xenotalk 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to shooting self in foot. Or Boomerang effect. Calling it "Plaxico" isn't ideal. Although it's clear the New York Giants are awful and worth disparaging whenever possible.ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it does not matter if being "Plaxico-ed" is used outside of Wikipedia. We don't get to have names for project space that do nothing but disparage a living person. UnitAnode 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete or Rename and remove all references to Plaxico I was shocked to find out that in this essay no reliable sources are used to establish the use of this term in the wider culture. Per BLP such pejorative use of a person's name should be backed up with heavy duty reliable sources to even be considered for inclusion in an article. Absolutely no reason to include such doubtful neologisms especially ones so blatantly violating WP:BLP. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to less BLP-violating title, remove references to real living person, retain redirect and shortcut for historical purposes. --Jayron32 20:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly wouldn't object to that, that sounds like a really good compromise in fact. By doing so, a person would have to go out of their way to look up Plaxico to figure out what the name has to do with shooting yourself in the foot. I'd try rewriting it along those lines if that is the consensus in this discussion. -- Atama頭 20:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's how it might look: WP:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Just an idea. -- Atama頭 20:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I object to any redirect that keeps the extremely unique, real-life name as a redirect to a potentially pejorative essay. UnitAnode 20:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand and respect that position, however I was thinking of the fact that it will not really stop anyone from typing [[WP:DONTSHOOTYOURSELFINTHEFOOT|plaxicoed himself again]], now will it? The redirect is largely moot. If it is important that the letters [[WP:PLAXICO]] appear red rather than blue whenever someone types them, then fine, but that seems like a smaller problem than the existance of the BLP-violating text. For the record, regardless of whether or not the redirect is kept (it is a truly minor part of the issue), I fully support Atama's sandox rewrite. Can we just go with that instead and end the rest of this drama? --Jayron32 20:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People, it's not an article, it's an essay in Wikipedia space, and the man did in fact shoot himself in the leg, it's been very well documented in his own article. He's in jail for it right now. And, as someone who does not follow the NFL, I had no idea what people were talking about on ANI when they kept mentioning this until this essay was created. We're not going to "get in trouble" for it, the man obviously has bigger problems to worry about, like getting out of jail with his uh, you know what intact. Renaming it is fine, but I agree that the current title should remain as a useful redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that it's not an article makes it worse, not better. We should not be hosting things in our project space that use a living person's name simply as a pejorative. UnitAnode 20:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename and rewrite, per WP:BLP. --John (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – It doesn't really matter to me as to whether it stays or goes. But I'll say that whatever happens, it's not going to stop Wikipedians from saying "Plaxico" when such a moment occurs. –MuZemike 20:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You summed up my opinion exactly, MuZemike. -- Atama頭 21:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete replace with brief essay on editors frequently shooting themselves in the foot at AN/I. Hopefully WP:SHOT is not yet taken.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need WP:PBML :-) –MuZemike 21:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It seems to me that the point of the page can be summed up as: "If you've been disruptive, keep a low profile so that you won't be sanctioned." I would think that we would, on the contrary, seek to encourage this behavior, i.e., to have disruptive editors report themselves at a community noticeboard. "Disruptive editors, please commence riddling yourselves."
    If there is no consensus to delete, then rename (Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot or Wikipedia:Don't insert nine mercury thermometers in your anus) and remove all mentions of "Plaxico", including the shortcut redirect (which can be discussed at RfD if the page is not deleted), per WP:BLP. If the phrase "Plaxico effect" is notable, then create an article about it or add it as a list entry to an existing article; if the phrase is not notable, then a page dedicated to it is, in effect, a pillory. –Black Falcon (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Steelers Drive Plaxicoed" by Tim Curry [1] (paid material - not simple blog) , [2] and so on. I do not recall "notability" being required in projectspace, just in mainspace. Collect (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then write an article about it. Project space isn't exempt from BLP. Even if the essay were funny (it's not, particularly), it clearly disparages a living person, period. UnitAnode 21:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of the popularity of the meme on Wikipedia, using an essay to denigrate a living person is totally unacceptable. Kevin (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons specified by the nominator, and by myself in the previous MFD — we shouldn't have an essay whose primary purpose is to reflect negatively on a specific living person. Sure, this incident should be included (with proper sourcing and due weight) in his biography, but we shouldn't go beyond that and mock him in project space. *** Crotalus *** 22:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove every trace of Plaxico and rename: No reason to create such a meme here: we're not Encyclopaedia Dramatica yet, I hope. Deleting it outright is not needed, since it can all be solved with editing: let's erase any trace of mr.Plaxico from that essay (except perhaps the short redirect WP:PLAXICO, which can be a reasonable, even if poor taste, mnemonic), move to WP:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. --Cyclopiatalk 22:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as a BLP violation. ++Lar: t/c 23:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate with no reference to Plaxico. Sceptre (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move and rewrite per example above, with added BLP and a bit of G10. Do we really need a second MfD for this? The first one almost encouraged a move and rewrite. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DRV would have been the place to bring up that question. The closer of the original MFD said there was a consensus to keep, and no consensus to rename. -- Atama頭 00:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course keeping the idea shouldn't be contested, but "no verdict on renaming", given the arguments, implies to me to go right ahead and give it a try first. I'd move it right now if the tag didn't say not to. It's clearly the way ahead with this one. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or rewrite under a different title - And lose the WP shortcut.. Plaxico'd is just this decade's name for this phenomenon.. the concept is centuries old. (btw, Plaxico was his first name). --Versageek 00:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Points about namespace (WP versus article versus talk) are irrelevant - The first sentence of WP:BLP says it applies " to any Wikipedia page." The phrase may be common, and the phrase may not be going away anytime soon, but it doesn't mean it merits a WP namespace page or essay which demeans the subject and legitimizes the use of the phrase. We don't have WP:Nixon, WP:Louganis or WP:Lewinsky pages. If his name itself has become a common pejorative then that fact should be well referenced and added to the article on him. Wikipedia may (and certainly does) contain content which may be offensive to some - but we don't have a stated goal to try to be offensive. Atama's a smart guy and great editor/admin, but this one goes a little too far into -BLP for my tastes.  7  00:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a bad idea. What if WP:PLAXICO redirected to Plaxico Burress#Accidental shooting? If this essay is deleted, and I think the winds are in that direction, that might be a way to keep the bluelink alive. I understand the BLP concerns, though I think they're misplaced; there's nothing here that's not at his biography (in fact, I tried to hype up his good career in the essay for balance) and everything is sourced and compliant with WP:BLP. If the concern is using Plaxico's name in a disparaging manner, it goes well beyond this essay. -- Atama頭 01:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for considering the options. I'm all for including any aspect of the cultural use of his name as an effect within Plaxico Burress#Accidental shooting as long as it's referenced. But as mentioned below, the first two references in the essay currently only point to the event taking place - not to the meme. The third reference is broken. If there are RS to support the popularity of the pejorative then fine to include it there. However I still think the shortcut redirect you suggest may be viewed as WP trying to endorse or popularize the term and I suspect it would quickly end up at RFD with this same argument.  7  02:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but maybe rename to Plaxico effect. The only major difference I can see between this and Streisand effect is that this is an internal essay, and the latter is an article, both of which are well-sourced in relation to the facts. I don't think anyone would criticise us if an editor came to WP:ANI complaining about somebody else's image uploads when it was found on examination that his/er own were somewhat dubious. By your actions shall you stand or fall, and that the subject of this essay brought about his own injuries through self-inflicted action is a documented matter of fact. The only comparable example I can think of is of Icarus, although Daedalus did warn him not to fly too close to the sun. It's a matter for community consensus, but I don't see it as a WP:BLP violation. Rodhullandemu 00:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - My goodness, what a bunch of drama queenery. It's a simple meme, no different from and no more disparaging than the Streisand effect term. Overwrought histrionics FTL. Tarc (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    re: to both Rodhullandemu and Tarc - the differences between this and Streisand effect are multiple and significant. The most relevant being the difference in common-use popularity of the terms. Compare ghits for the two terms and you'll see a massive difference. Furthermore, Streisand effect is a referenced article that discusses the already established term, where the references point to the use of the term/effect. The references in the Plaxico essay point to the fact that the incident took place, not to the use of the name as a term/effect. Therefore, the WP essay on Plaxico could be viewed as WP trying to legitimize the term and bring it into common usage. Lastly, with all due respect, I don't see this discussion as drama queenery nor do I see how any of the other comments could be viewed as histrionics - so it may be best to avoid terms which incite unnecessary tension in this civil discussion.  7  01:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. An internal essay as against an already externally notable phenomenon does not work in the same way. If multiple reliable external sources use our essay as a source, then the emphasis shifts from Plaxico effect to Media treatment of the Plaxico effect in Wikipedia. I agree that we are not in the business of creating internet memes, but we have to be alive to the reality that this will happen, although rarely, because most of the creative development of the Internet in those terms, is not happening here. That is because we are not in that business. Also, it's way too early to judge by ghits if only because there is as yet no video on YouTube or entries on pages of MyFace or elsewhere to sustain such. Rodhullandemu 01:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point about it being too early to judge by ghits is absolutely correct, and indicates (to me) that it is also too early for us to be documenting our take on the situation. Also - re: this being an "internal essay", considering how quickly google indexes us it's not surprising that the essay in question is the number 1 ghit when googling Plaxico effect without quotes. Since our BLP goals are to avoid doing harm to a reputation I am going to place a noindex tag on the essay until this is straightened out.  7  02:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't argue with that; there is no particular reason why our internal workings should be showing up in searches, particularly if they are disputed. It's all very well being an open community, but there are limits, in that the New York Times, for example, don't make their internals open to public scrutiny. Whereas we do so, and are proud of that fact, we shouldn't suffer because of our transparency; contrariwise, compared to mainstream politics and journalism, we should revel in it, subject to our critics/competitors realising that we are not driven by revenue generation, but objectivity. Would that they had an otherwise economically viable business model- but they don't. Rodhullandemu 02:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just food for thought, but how does this essay ruin his reputation any more than a wikinews story on him shooting himself in the leg or us having an article on said event? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 02:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The potential for harm is the same as in a hypothetical examples of proper names I listed above, or from a corporate perspective similar to us creating an essay entitled WP:ToyotaSticky to describe any sort of analogy like "test your products before they ship" or "don't trust your suppliers" -- or us creating WP:Edsel for "what were you thinking?!?". While all events did in fact happen (the shooting, the pedal problem, and the car) it is not be our place to help a phrase achieve mainstream acceptance, but to document it once it does. WP results are too prevalent to allow anything potentially damaging to exist where we were the ones to create/sponsor/endorse the concept until such time that other reliable sources are reporting on them. Even if this phrase is in widespread use within the WP community as a "ha ha!" in edit summaries or talk pages, -BLP memes should not be created here.  7  03:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, we might as well ask Plaxico himself what he thinks of the page...who knows, perhaps he will surprise us all and endorse it. I guess I just don't see why it's derogatory; moreover I consider it wisdom if the "How to avoid the effect" section were made the focal point rather than the term itself. In Scholar's Bowl, we had a team member accidentally rip a cord out of the wall. To this day, we call tripping over the cord pulling a Mike, and everyone, including Mike himself, laughs about it. Long story short, it depends on whether it is received/taken in good humor or bad humor. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't see how it is derogatory? Every time someone falls over their own feet at ANI we compare their actions to this guy. I cannot fathom the thought of asking him is it is OK for us to continue using him as an example of stupidity. Kevin (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and remove all reference to "Plaxico" If a user were to create an article like this (essentially creating a derogatory meme) we would immediately delete it (or, if sufficiently notable, make a proper article with neutral title and content, based on reliable sources). We often have to argue with POV editors who want to highlight the latest misfortune of a politician or celebrity, yet this page is exactly the same: 15 months ago, a stupid incident occurred, and here we are making a meme out of it. Another essay making the same point can be created, using Petard as the cute shortcut (WP:PETARD). One thing that is wrong with the current page is that a reader has to struggle to see what it's all about. Reading about the incident may be a welcome diversion from the drama festival which linked to this page, but if the essay is to actually be helpful, it should get to the point a lot more quickly. Also, the incident regarding Plaxico Burress is incorrectly used in the essay because Burress was not trying to harm anyone else (which is the intent when user X reports user Y to ANI, with the result that X is sanctioned). By contrast, the lead of Petard contains "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else". Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, because possibly being derogatory about a convicted felon is something we have to spend ever-so-much-time worrying about. Get a grip. Tarc (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP applies no differently to convicted felons than to anyone else, though - and for good reason. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet no one can show what the BLP violation here actually is, or what harm is coming from poking fun at a famous person who got himself into a bit of trouble. Tarc (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How about
    or
    This essay makes a pejorative catchphrase out of a living person's given name because of what was a not-especially-earth-shattering incident (many people hurt themselves by making poorly-considered choices). In addition, because the focus of the page is the catchprase based on the one incident, it does not and cannot give appropriately proportionate coverage to negative and positive information. –Black Falcon (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Also, even if you disagree that it contravenes the specific wording quoted by Black Falcon it seems to me that "poking fun at a famous person" is a definite violation of the spirit of BLP policy. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Beeblebrox and Rodhullandemu. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 02:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Derogatory meme that serves no purpose except to humiliate a well-known athlete. Warrah (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have a strong opinion here (and generally have tried to stay out of BLP DramaFest '10), but in case anyone cares, this has been discussed on Jimbo's talk page [3]. -- Pakaran 03:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree. It is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 03:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lame meme is lame. Especially a forced meme (ooh -redlink!) - WP will not be the worse for its deletion - Alison ❤ 03:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect it to Milhouse. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unsourced WP:BLP violation unless we can include some RS about the phrase being used, not just the incident having happened - or at least link to a mainspace article that does so. It seems clear that this would be a BLP violation if hosted in mainspace, and that policy doesn't respect space boundaries. Would it be nice to keep this essay and throw "WP:PLAXICO" about in ANI discussions? Yes, maybe. But it's just a website, after all - if something makes our work a little bit nicer/easier/more fun/whatever but risks defaming someone in actual meatspace, it doesn't seem like a hard choice. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a BLP Violation. Essays and main space articles can have a grey area where titles of things can be controversial. While this isnt a perfect 'Streisand' it is notable and has been hit the public lexicon. I think the perfect comment in this discussion was from user Alison above, who wanted this removed because it was a 'forced meme'. Just because you dont want something to have greater notoriety does not mean it has not already reached a level where it should be on this encyclopedia. If you want to rename the essay 'shooting yourself in the foot' i mean, it losses its effect and notoriety but then people cant complain about BLP. Either way, i dont see why this has to be removed. MrMacMan Talk 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename: Shooting oneself in the foot is a common activity for disruptive users, but we don't need to name the activity after a living person. --Carnildo (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And ban anti-WP:BLP trolls on sight. 67.170.86.33 (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please avoid making inflammatory comments. While I think that most editors share a distaste for trolls, your comment is neither applicable nor constructive in the context of this discussion. Thank you, –Black Falcon (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, for the benefit of future discussants and the closer, I would like to note this edit so that the context of previous comments about the page is clear. –Black Falcon (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it was me removing a BLP vio that <personal attack removed> Tarc decided to reinsert. You people play fast and loose with others lives but hide behind these cute nicknames. Keep it up; I'm sure you'll all be chuckling when your Foundation turns over your IPs (as they have in the past) at the first hot whisper from an attorney without a court order. 67.170.86.33 (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of what it was, and I did not revert it because I agree with the removal. Nothing here, however, excuses your personal attacks and indirect intimidation; if you continue, you will be blocked. –Black Falcon (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Flat out unacceptable. JBsupreme (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, keep redirect. Surely he's not the only person to have made a fool of himself with firearms. --GRuban (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Keeping the redirect defeats the whole purpose. This person has such a unique name, that keeping the redirect at that name is nearly as much of a BLP violation as the current page. It still holds his real-life name up as a term of scorn. UnitAnode 14:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No consensus is not an option. - Blatantly against Wikipedia's fundamental principles as an encyclopedia.--WaltCip (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's cited in discussions all over. It could probably be renamed and should be removed from the search results on Google, etc. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, violates BLP, is conduct unbecoming of an encyclopedia, having it is like shooting ourselves in th ... well, you know. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above delete !votes. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It won't be me closing this since I participated, but it looks to me like we would make the most people happy by renaming it and leaving this behind as a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is absolutely no truth to this statement. There are 20+ recommendations for deletion. I don't count nearly that for renaming. Additionally, a few people who have seemed open to renaming have explicitly said that no reference to "Plaxico" should be left behind. I would encourage you to either support this claim, or withdraw it completely. UnitAnode 17:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe it or not, I actually agree with Unitanode here. It's not my personal preference, but the consensus seems to favor outright deletion at this point (though that may change). -- Atama頭 18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plaxico Buress' indiscretions are very well cited, so no BLP violation. Its use here is satirical, and rather effective at that. The only real issue about it is that nobody outside the US is likely to understand the reference, so renaming the essay using Plaxico as an example (and shortcut) is probably in order. Resolute 16:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tbe issue isn't whether his "indiscretions" are "cited", it's that we have no damn business using a living person's first name as a pejorative, whether satirical or not, or funny or not. UnitAnode 17:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The fact that Plaxico Burress's legal troubles are well-documented in the proper biographical article does not make it acceptable to use his name as a pejorative article title in projectspace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it is true that WP:BLP applies over all namespaces, I don't believe this essay places undue negative attention on Plaxico Burress. The incident at the nightclub is very well-known in American popular culture and, unfortunately for Burress, will probably be one of the most-remembered moments of the career of a great football player. Our BLP policy does not require us to sugarcoat things like this – it only requires us to present them neutrally. The essay in question presents the issue neutrally, invokes Plaxico Burress's name in a humorous – but not slanted – manner to make a point while referencing American popular culture, and is not unduly cruel to Burress. Wikipedia did not originate the use of Burress's name to signify shooting oneself in the foot, nor is it against our BLP policy to mention something that actually happened and is mentioned in reliable sources. That said, I would not object to a rename. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename, largly per Willoughby above. The article is factual and sourced, and not particularily negative. I agree that more examples of ANI contribitors shooting themselves in the foot would be worthwhile. A rename and rewrite may be in order, but I see no reason to remove the redirect or get rid of the reference to Mr. Burress. Buddy431 (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last two !votes say that WP:PLAXICO is not particularly negative (no more than the well-known fact that the incident occurred). That is totally incorrect because we are creating a meme and use a living person's name to label any act of stupidity. There is no doubt that the subject is stuck with the incident and will never escape its impact. However, use of WP:PLAXICO is educating hundreds of people that "to plaxico" is to do something monumentally stupid. Certainly the article Plaxico Burress should clearly cover the incident (as it does), but the point of WP:PLAXICO is that it doing far more than documenting an incident and it certainly violates WP:BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2010 (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 page'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:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Plaxico_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1140185013"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Plaxico (2nd nomination), released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.