Talk:Mike Kelly (gridiron football)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. 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

Move? 20 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: The technical move to Mike Kelly (gridiron football) has been endorsed. (non-admin closure) Wbm1058 (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It was proposed in this section that Mike Kelly (gridiron football) be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below.

The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment.

Links: current log • target log

I was asked (as shown here) to move Mike Kelly (Canadian football) to Mike Kelly (gridiron football), and obeying it I found that history-merge was needed, to repair an old cut-and-paste made around 6 March 2009. Examining its history shows that around December 2008 and February 2009 there was a 16-move WP:move war over where this page should be. Please discuss and sort out where this page should be. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Anthony, thanks for moving the article. I wasn't aware of the move war. I think that was hidden by the cut-and-page in March 2009. I don't think the current name will draw any controversy now. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Arrest

Per WP:WELLKNOWN - "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it".

Kelly's arrest was well documented Mike, covered both in Winnipeg and nationally in Canada [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. One sentence about it is not WP:UNDUE - Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

But per that policy, the incident must be "noteworthy, relevant, and well documented", this is neither noteworthy nor well-documented and only tangentially relevant. WP:BLPCRIME also relevant. ——SN 54129 20:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The incident is relevant to Kelly's dismissal from his most notable role. Seems rather well-documented at the time and reliable sources years later refer to the incident. At any rate, we should wait for a broader consensus before removing. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

No, BLP concerns take precedence, and per WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content, however long it's been in the article. ——SN 54129 20:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, Jweiss11, your edit summary here was highly misleading, as you did not merely "format ref", but reinserted disputed content to a BLP. Per H:ES, one should avoid misleading summaries. ——SN 54129 20:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)