Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Schuler

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 on deletion but merged with 2009 Taconic State Parkway crash. Let's wait and see folks before nominating for a second time. Nothing to see here, folks, please move along. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Diane Schuler

Diane Schuler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tragic event, but there are thousands of similarly tragic traffic accidents every year, and this is not a particularly notable incident. Denied speedy deletion previously, so PROD was not an option. Risker (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Note to closing administrator: Please see this Administrator Noticeboard thread prior to closing. Thanks. Risker (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Extremely Strong Keep - Not particularly notable? Thousands of similarly tragic traffic accidents every year? Come now. I can hardly take those claims seriously. In fact, this deletion suggestion probably falls under the WP:Snowball clause. While there are many traffic crashes each year, I have never seen any similar to this ... let alone the "thousands similar to this", as you claim. This is indeed notable ... and far different from the other thousands of crashes. This is notable on so many levels, that I hardly know where to begin. It is notable, as it appears in reliable sources consistently and repeatedly over the past few months ... with each developing turn of the story. Differences between many thousands of "garden variety" road crashes include: 8 people died; a mother caused the death of her own children / family (numbering 4), as opposed to strangers; the inexplicable actions of Schuler; she was driving the wrong way on a road she is familiar with; she had enormous amounts of drugs / alcohol while choosing to drive with her own children / nieces; she called home to state that she wasn't feeling well; the young child called home to state that the driver was acting strangely; the alleged drunk driver has no history of drinking or drunk driving; what parent would put their own kid in harm's way like this ... much less 5 of their own kids?; the aftermath back-and-forth tit-for-tat between Schuler's husband and the other victims (which has been highly publicized, sourced, and thus notable); etc., etc., etc. I could go on and on. This case is extremely unique. I cannot fathom how you equate it with "thousands of similar traffic accidents" that occur every year. In fact, I would challenge you to cite even one similar event. Just one. Furthermore, this was the worst accident on that highway in 75+ years ... notable in itself. In addition, this event was a catalyst to open national discussion / debate about "hidden alcoholism" and how it can be very hard to detect in people. It opened national debate / discussion about "closet drinkers" among suburban housewives and mothers. Also, this event prompted a few states to consider new laws about drunk driving while children are in the car. (See, for example, the following article that recently appeared in The New York Daily News: In Wake of Taconic Crash, Governor Paterson's Tough Talk on New Legislation on DUIs if Kids Aboard.) (In fact, these new laws will probably be come to be popularly known as the "Schuler Act", in my opinion.) How much more significant / notable do you want? This case heightened awareness and discussion of alcohol issues on very many levels throughout the nation. Quite frankly, suggesting that this be deleted is simply ridiculous. And claiming that this event is "similar to thousands of other similar crashes" merely demonstrates severe misunderstanding, ignorance, and/or lack of knowledge of the issues at hand ... and the deep impact that this event had in the USA. No one will be able to cite even one similar crash ... much less the thousands similar to this that you proffer. That being said ... as I stated on the article Talk Page, however, this article should be renamed "2009 Taconic State Parkway crash" (or some such) ... as opposed to "Diane Schuler". (See: Talk:Diane Schuler#Title of article, posted by me on 08-22-09.) This article is about the crash; it is not a biography of Diane Schuler. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

Comment I can see the long-term notability for this particular accident, based on the coverage by sources outside of New York (USA Today, ABC news, NPR, etc.) and since it will be cited as an example of the tragedy that can be caused by drinking and driving. But I can't say "keep" for this ghoulish, over-the-top, minute-by-minute, retrace-the-route account of the tragedy that appears to have been lifted from the Journal-News website. Mandsford (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is ambiguous. Are you advocating Keep or Delete? Suggesting that ghoulish facts and details in an article be re-written is far different than suggesting that said article be entirely deleted. Which is your position? By your own admission, this crash is notable. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

It's not a vote. Yes, I "admit" that this crash is notable, but my position is that I will not !vote to keep an article that I really do not like. Perhaps others will urge that it be kept. Mandsford (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No one said that this is a vote. This is understood to be a discussion. Your above reply is as ambiguous as the first. Are you advocating that the article be kept or deleted? It's a simple and straight-forward question. Why not simply answer it? Why be so coy about it? This is what I got from your response, however. (And what any reasonable reader would also get.) You agree that the crash is notable and thus merits a Wikipedia article. Yet, at the same time, you do not support keeping notable articles on Wikipedia just because you "don't really like them". Wow. Are Wikipedia readers really supposed to take that position of yours with any seriousness? Does such a statement lend itself to any credibility whatsoever? Is that your belief? That boils down to "I want Wikipedia to only contain articles that I really like, notability issues aside." I would offer to you that the standard in discussing whether articles be kept or deleted centers around notability, not whether individual editors "really like" the article. And -- as I stated earlier -- a more reasoned response in a deletion discussion would be "This article, while written poorly, covers a notable topic. Thus, it should be cleaned up, but not removed." Your argument of keeping only the articles that you "really like" is a standard with which I am unfamiliar. It's rather silly, to be honest. (As a side note, I can see why "they" demanded an Electoral College be written into the US Constitution.) Unreal. Thanks for your, um, response. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

Noted. Mandsford (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The only thing that makes this accident stand out is the amount of minute detail. Otherwise it's just another case of DUI. NVO (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You claim that this is "just another DUI case". Which other cases, specifically, have raised national (if not, international) awareness of this cause to the extent that this has? Which other cases, specifically, have prompted legislation to stiffen DUI laws when children are passengers? Which other cases, specifically, have received the level of attention that this one has? Please let me know. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

What attention? It's all gone, there's a trickle of local news concerning her husband, nothing worth of note. As for the legislation, it appears that the bill was already in progress before the accident more stale news. NVO (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(1) You have not answered any of my questions, I see, when I asked you to offer up "similar cases". (2) As to the points you did raise (regarding attention): Hmmmmm ... Let's see what a quick Google search shows us. Not that it's infallible or scientific ... but it is a fairly good barometer. If I use either "Diane Schuler" or "Taconic crash" ... or some such variation ... as the search terms, these are the results.

* When I limit the results to the past day (24 hours), I get 2,130 hits.

* When I limit the results to the past week, I get 66,800 hits.

* When I limit the results to the past month, I get 302,000 hits.

* When I limit the results to Google's "recent results", I get 732,000 hits.

These include local, state, and national coverage. Reliable sources appearing include: MSNBC, The Huffington Post, Newsday Magazine, ABC News, The Associated Press, The New York Daily News, The Miami Herald, The New York Post, Fox News, CBS News, and The Seattle Times, to name a few. Clearly, this refutes your claim that there is no attention to this incident. This refutes your claim that all of the attention to this incident is gone. This refutes your claim that there is only a trickle of coverage about this incident. This refutes your claim that there is only local news coverage of this incident. This refutes your claim that there is nothing worthy of note. Furthermore, you concede that there is indeed coverage on the husband, thus indicating persistent and consistent coverage (i.e., notability of the incident). (3) You also claim "it appears that the bill was already in progress before the accident". To the contrary, the article that I cited above states: "In the wake of the horrific Taconic crash, Gov. Paterson on Thursday will unveil legislation to toughen the laws for drunken driving with kids in the car." It also states: "Paterson will unveil his legislation less than three weeks after the Taconic crash." This New York Daily News article was dated August 13, 2009. This clearly contradicts your claim that the bill was in progress before the crash. In fact, the article explicitly states that Paterson is unveiling this in light of the crash. And three weeks after the crash. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

It's a sad fact, but local politicians do jump at accidents to pursue their agendas. I am in no position to judge governor's real intents, but it is clear that he could use any of recent DUI accidents familiar to his constituency. NVO (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This comment does not make sense. How could the Governor use just any old garden-variety DUI accident to pursue an agenda of legislation that targets specifically children passengers as victims? He would be saying, for example, "In this John Smith DUI case, there were no children passengers at all as victims. And I would like to use this John Smith DUI case to pursue legislation that stiffens the penalties for DUI cases where children passengers are the victims." Makes no sense whatsoever. Also, the intent of the legislator is irrelevant. The relevant point is that this crash prompted legislation, independent of the legislator's underlying motives / intent / agenda. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 7 September 2009)

• Strong keep, not because the incident was especially tragic, but because it was especially weird and as a result, has received tons of press and public attention, much more than the average fatal collision. The argument that the article should be deleted for having too much detail is ridiculous, as that's a) wholly a content dispute and b) goes to bolster the incident's notability, since these details would not have been reported if a wide number of media sources didn't think them of interest to the public. (The accusation that the timeline was "lifted" from the Journal-News website is both false and inexplicable; the timeline was built gradually and currently cites at least fourteen different sources.) The argument that it should be deleted because reporting on the incident has tapered off, even allowing the benefit of the doubt that that's a true assessment, is still baffling, but I would hope a link to Notability Is Not Temporary resolves that. Coverage of this incident was not limited to a one-time burst of reports that "an accident happened", but has extended to new reporting whenever a new development has arisen in the investigation of the event. Propaniac (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that! (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

• It's 7 weeks after the crash, so WP:NTEMP doesn't really apply. If it is still notable 7 months or 7 years afterward, then it applies. I think it is worthy of mention in the article about the parkway, where indeed there is a nice, succinct paragraph about it; it's probably the most notable traffic accident on that roadway. We have a couple of these a year on Highway 401, often worse than this, and I wouldn't call them lastingly noteworthy. If legislation results from this, then the legislation would be noteworthy and a paragraph about this particular incident as a catalyst for the legislation would be appropriate in that article too, should it come to pass. This incident is also appropriately listed in List of road accidents 2000-2009, and that is where the level of notability should be noticed; while I do not dismiss the tragedy of the deaths and injuries in this case, it is illogical to say this is "very noteworthy" when compared to collisions resulting in much higher death and injury. As noted in the nomination, these sorts of incidents are commonplace, and very, very few are noteworthy enough for their own article. A nasty accident during a slow news cycle just means that lots of stories get generated; it doesn't mean it has any true significance. Risker (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You are wholly missing the point. This case is notable not because it was a DWI, not because it was a head-on crash, not because it was a wrong-way driver, and not because so many people perished. Yes ... such events are quite commonplace in the USA. This incident is notable due to the bizarre and strange circumstances all of which aligned to produce this crash. You state that: "We have a couple of these a year on Highway 401, often worse than this". (A) I find that terribly difficult to believe. You have had several cases on Highway 401 that are similar to the Schuler case? That is flat out incorrect. If so, please provide the details that make it similar to the Schuler case. If indeed your Highway 401 cases were similar (i.e., a mother with no drinking history drives drunk on the wrong side of the highway and kills her own 5 children / family members), I am quite certain that we would have heard about it. (B) When you make such a claim, this simply proves my point. You are considering these cases similar because they are DWI's and/or because of the high fatality count. And ... as I stated before ... that comparison is wholly missing the point. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 7 September 2009)

• I'm not sure why some people seem to be thinking of this incident as "some cars crashed and some people died," and then comparing it to all incidents where some cars crashed and some people died, and saying that since most of those incidents don't get a lot of public attention, this one isn't notable. Are you aware that this incident did get lots of public attention? Even if the incident were precisely comparable to other incidents that were mostly ignored, if one such incident is the subject of a huge amount of news reporting, it becomes notable. (In this particular case, the attention came because it involved an apparently responsible and loving mother who killed her daughter and nieces while driving, for no apparent reason, in the wrong direction on a major highway for nearly two miles without stopping, and it turned out she was filled to the brim with alcohol and narcotics even though everyone who knew her said she rarely drank and never did drugs and appeared sober the last time anybody saw her alive. But none of that is why we can determine it to be a notable incident; it's what led to the press coverage that allows us to establish notability.) I'm pretty sure there's nothing in WP:N that requires incidents to result in passed legislation, or to kill more people than have ever been killed before, in order to be notable. It's about the attention received from the media, which reflects the interest of the public. Propaniac (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep As the subject of extensive and continuing media coverage not only about the immediate incident that addresses any BLP1E issues. Ample reliable and verifiable sources establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Incidentally, a declined speedy does not preclude you from prodding an article. Quite a lot of articles are deleted by prod after it's determined they don't meet the criteria for a speedy delete. Propaniac (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete this sad and pointless story. Content is unnecessarily goulish and when that is taken away nothing is left. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC).

... except that it's a notable incident. Let's keep the topic at whether or not this is notable. Whether the incident is sad or tragic is not relevant to notability. Whether the content is well written or poorly written is not relvant to notability. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 7 September 2009)

• Delete Yeah... Sad story but wikipedia is not a newspaper... Str8cash (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep Neutral per the article's creator. My own edit of the article would look like this. Although it's true that drunk driving accidents happen regularly, this one has attracted attention from TIME Magazine, USA Today, ABC and CBS news, etc. and gotten nationwide press. As with 1988's Carrollton, Kentucky bus collision, where a wrong-way drunk driver killed 27 people, there are examples of DUI that serve as cautionary tales for future generations. Just as the focus of the 1988 crash was on the accident, rather than on the perpetrator, Larry Mahoney, I don't believe that this should become a biography of Diane Schuler. Mandsford (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• neutral here's my opinion when Ttonyb1 first proposed a speedy delete. and this will be my opinion when every admin proposes a speedy delete on this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Diane_Schuler#Contesting_speedy_deletion but.... you know what, who cares. wikipedia isn't what it was anymore so it doesn't really matter. Lucky dog (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Your reply is confusing ... or, at least, I don't understand what you're saying. Why would you contest speedy deletion proposals every time for this article ... yet, advocate neutrality for this specific AfD deletion proposal? Please clarify. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 8 September 2009)

• Keep At some point, a particular news item transcends into general notabilty, and admitting it's a subjective call, I think this one has. That being said, the article could certainly use a trimming Vartanza (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep - the circumstances make this more than just your everyday, run-of-the-mill DUI case. Though I agree it should be about the incident and not about the perpetrator, primarily. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• keep - This was a horrific accident that is note worthy on the taconic parkways history. Worthy of a page on wikipedia.. GormnT (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  — GormnT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note: User:Mandsford moved the article to Taconic Parkway Crash. Mandsford also subsequently replaced the article with an entirely new, much shorter version, which I have mostly reverted because I didn't feel the new version adequately supported the notability of the incident, which would obviously be unfair for this discussion. Once it's decided here to keep the article in some form, I am absolutely open (as one of the main editors to the article in its current state) to revising and shortening it considerably, to something in between the current version and Mandsford's linked suggested version. I just didn't think it was fair to suddenly change discussion of an article with 22 sources, to discussion of an article with 3 sources that barely touches on why this is more notable than most other fatal traffic collisions. Propaniac (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The shorter version looks tidy, but it completely removed the stuff that (here I have to side with Joseph A. Spadaro) made it look notable for inclusion. Take out the ticking timebomb and the gory flashbacks and its just another crash that happened a month ago. Perhaps, in case of keep vote, the original detail should stay. NVO (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fair enough; this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, after all. However, I'm surprised to see removal of links to national sources, like TIME, USA Today, CBS News, etc. Ultimately, any Wikipedia article is a mix of two things: (1) basic narrative and (2) links that people can click upon if they want further information. To the extent that details (such as the timeline) can be found in links, it's an editorial choice as to whether the narrative is made better or worse by the inclusion of a particular piece of information. I think there is a difference of opinion, even among those who say keep, as to whether the original level of detail is necessary. Mandsford (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I admit that I didn't notice the national sources you referred to in the External Links section; I have no objection to those being re-added. As I said earlier, I think the optimal version of this article would be somewhere between the suggested shorter one, and the current one. Propaniac (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Extensive secondary source coverage. Brianga (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The version of User:Mandsford (which has since been reverted) is superior to the bloated and goulish original. Nonetheless, the incident is of a local and transient nature (except to those directly affected by it) and is not suitable for a WP article. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC).

How do you define "local" and "transient"? If you define "local" as "appearing in reliable sources all across the country" ... and you define "transient" as "notable in-depth reliable source coverage that is continuing and persistent" ... then I will agree with you. Otherwise, if you are using the plain-language meaning of these terms, your claim is silly, not credible, and/or wholly misinformed. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 11 September 2009)

Nobody has brought up WP:CIVIL yet, and I think it's because we recognize that you're new to the AfD Forum. The response above, however, goes too far. You really need to stop this tendency to make a hostile response to anyone who happens to disagree with you. Saying "Thanks" at the end does not make a difference. I've was blocked once for uncivil comments, and I can assure you that it is no fun. You have the makings of a good writer and I envision that you will make many good contributions to Wikipedia, but we all need to do our part to keep discussions under control. Mandsford (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, my postings are all quite civil. If people are going to post preposterous claims, then –- yes -– I will certainly call them on that. It has nothing to do with whether or not they agree or disagree with my point of view. I am not under any delusion that I am the King of Wikipedia and everyone must agree with my opinion. In my opinion, it is simply preposterous to make the statement that this crash received only local coverage. In my opinion, it is simply preposterous to make the statement that coverage of this crash was transient. Under the normal meanings of those terms, such claims are simply ridiculous -- and factually false. And, if someone dares to assert such preposterous claims, then -– yes –- I will certainly call them out to defend said claims. Questioning statements that are factually untrue in no way equates to incivility. Requesting that such statements be backed up / defended / explained -- when they fly in the face of the facts -- does not equate to incivility. My above post can be restated to read: (1) How are you using the term "local" to describe this incident, when its coverage has in fact appeared in reliable sources all across the country? You see, I myself would use the word "national" -– not "local" -- to describe that type of coverage. And I believe that many (most) others would also. My above post can also be restated to read: (2) How are you using the term "transient" to describe coverage of this incident, when it has in fact received notable in-depth reliable source coverage that is continuing and persistent (all these months after the incident)? You see, I myself would use the word "continuous" -– not "transient" -– to describe that type of coverage. And I believe that many (most) others would also. So, please tell me exactly what is uncivil about asking such relevant and reasonable questions? No – I don’t don any kid gloves to call a spade a spade. Such statements are absurd, and I will call the editor out on it. If he (or you) is offended, so be it. My statements and my points are valid and reasonable and deserve an answer or, at least, deserve consideration. There is nothing uncivil about my choice to not wear kid gloves, so as to not offend an editor who makes such absolutely false statements. This crash has received local and transient coverage! Yeah, right. Not on this planet, as I have witnessed it. But, that's just my perception. To which I am entitled. And I invite the claimant of the statement to back up said statement. Too bad if people are "offended" when they are asked to back up / defend preposterous (and flat-out false) statements. That's their problem, not mine. My questions are valid and civil. If you purposely read incivility into it, that's your issue – not mine. I stand by my comments, as I have every right to do so. From my perspective ... calling the coverage of this crash either "local" or "transient" –- let alone both –- is indeed silly, not credible, and/or wholly misinformed. And I challenge the claimant to back up his statements. I would also proffer that many people would share my perception ... and/or that it would be entirely reasonable to do so. I don't live under a rock. As I said in my Post Number 1 (above), this entire deletion debate really falls under the WP:Snowball clause. Some editors, however, like a lot of "process" and like to hear themselves talk. And, so, we are endlessly forced to defend why a valid article like this is notable and belongs in Wikipedia. So, to re-iterate ... from all that I have seen ... how can this coverage be described as "local" or as "transient"? I await a reply. I may be misinformed. And I believe that that would only be the case if I do not understand the plain-language meanings of the terms "local" and "transient". And I am open to such possibility. If anyone cares to offer the definition of those terms ("local" and "transient") and how specifically they are applicable here, I am more than interested to hear. Furthermore ... if anyone is being uncivil ... it is you towards me! First: you purposefully inject your own emotions / interpretations (i.e., that are offensive to you) into my comments. And then you have the nerve to call my comments "offensive"! Unreal. When it was you, yourself, who injected the offending emotion in the first place. Second: you deny (or attempt to do so) me of my right to ask valid questions and challenge others' claims and statements. Which, by the way, is the very definition of a discussion / debate. Which, by the way, is what this page is. Third: You indicate that I have no right to conclude my comments with a "thank you" ... or that doing so violates incivility rules. Simply because you yourself are injecting a sarcastic tone into the term "thank you" (that is not there to begin with). I challenge you to review all of my posts. I end 99.999999% of my posts with a "thank you". Which, by the way, is the very definition of civility ... not incivility. Unreal. Sometimes, it feels like the inmates are running the asylum. I love how people can argue that white is black or up is down, with a straight face. And then they get "offended" when they are called on it. Simply unreal. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 10 September 2009)

In addition ... three post-script comments in brief. (1) You describe my post as "hostile". My post is merely black-and-white words typed on a page / computer screen. There is no emotion. And there is no hostility. If there are any emotions or hostility anywhere in the neutral black-and-white posting, said emotions and hostility are there only by you injecting them in there. That is, you are interpreting neutral statements made by me as being hostile. I cannot control how you choose to interpret the black-and-white facially neutral words that I type. And, I would proffer: you cannot / should not inject the hostility into the neutral statements and then turn around and complain that they are hostile. They are only hostile because you think so. And because you have opted to add that emotion into my otherwise emotion-less and facially neutral comments. (2) You invoke that we all need to do our part to keep discussions under control. I agree. And I am doing my part. I am keeping this discussion under control by questioning and challenging statements made by editors. Especially false statements. This crash isn't "local" simply because some editor decides to type the five letters l, o, c, a, and l in describing the crash. And if he does indeed do that, then I will request that he defend or back up that claim ... which flies in the face of all the facts. So, I do indeed see that my questioning helps as my part to keep this discussion under control. (3) Here is another blatant falsity with which I disagree from the prior editor. The editor claims "this incident is of a local and transient nature (except to those directly affected by it)". At last check ... the Governor of New York instigated legislation because of this crash. All citizens of the state of New York would be subject to said legislation. The legislation would be / is debated by all senators and representatives in New York ... who represent all citizens of New York. So, how -- pray tell -- does an incident that extends its reach in such a broad and sweeping manner get described as not notable "except to those directly affected by it"? Is it me who has gone mad? There are 20 million people living in New York. All of them are affected by these laws. Not to mention the millions of others who don’t live in – but who visit – New York. How can anyone make the claim that this incident is only notable to the 8 people directly affected (and their family / friends)? You see, I myself cannot agree with that statement. But, that’s just me. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 11 September 2009).

Those of us who are registered users are at somewhat of a disadvantage to a person who uses only an IP address (64.252.26.82). I think that most users would consider comments such as "silly", "makes no sense", "misinformed", "preposterous", etc., to be uncivil. Whether you choose to become a "Wikipedian" or not, Wikipedia is a community and we look out for each other. Mandsford (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, well if you insist that I don my kid gloves ... two can play at that game. First: let me re-phrase. It is my opinion that offering as true statements that are absolutely factually false is silly, makes no sense (to me), is misinformed, and is preposterous. That is my opinion, period. Just because you do not like my opinion does not mean that I am engaging in incivility. Second: Since we are donning our kid gloves now ... I shall accuse you of incivility toward me. (A) For accusing me, unjustly, of being uncivil, simply for stating my opinion. (B) For accusing me of incivility simply because you do not agree with my opinions. (C) For categorizing as uncivil my reasonable requests that factually false statement be defended, clarified, or explained. (D) For labeling as uncivil my attempts to engage in meaningful dialogue, discourse, discussion, and debate. All of these, by definition, include questioning the claims / statements of others ... and demanding / requesting explanations, clarifications, and the backing up of claims ... and offering counter-claims. That is the very essence (nay, purpose) of discussion and debate. Discussion and debate does not mean: people make factually false claims ... and so as to not hurt their feelings, we simply let such claims go untested and unquestioned. Third: I notice that you completely ignored (i.e., did not address) any of the valid claims that I have made in the (immediately preceding) above two posts. Rather, you choose to focus on calling me uncivil when -- as I see it -- I am engaging in discussion and debate about an article ... the very reason for which this page was set up (i.e., exactly to debate and discuss it) ... !!! I will assume that you have no valid counterpoint(s) to the points that I have made ... otherwise, I am sure you would have raised them. Instead, you are resorting to a "red herring" by (falsely) calling my actions uncivil. Ad hominem attacks that avoid substantive claims. Fourth: It should be well-noted that all comments in Wikipedia debates / discussions are -- either explicitly or implicitly -- preceded by the phrase "it is my opinion that ... xyz". (Actually, such is the case for all debates, not just Wikipedia debates.) Thus, I do not think that stating one's opinion is uncivil. (You do, it seems.) And, it is my contention that that is the very purpose of an AfD debate ... to offer one's opinions, arguments, and counter-arguments. That is the entire point of AfD debates and discussions. If someone is offended and deems it uncivil and hostile that their opinions, posts, and statements will be subjected to being questioned and to being countered ... then perhaps engaging in debate is not quite an appropriate activity for one so offended. In other words ... you are effectively saying: "I want to engage and participate in a discussion about this topic but only on my terms. And my terms include that you cannot disagree with me. And if you do so, I will consider that to be hostile and uncivil. For clearly, I am right. And it offends me that anyone would question or counter me. Even in a debate." That is the net effect of your posts, as I read them. (Which, I opine, is ridiculous.) Yours is a sentiment with which I disagree ... and, moreover, with which I am fully entitled to disagree. Without being accused of rule-breaking and/or incivility, that is. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 12 September 2009)

• Keep as Taconic Parkway Crash 2009 Taconic State Parkway crash. The subject meets WP:GNG. Location (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC) [edited 17:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)]

I agree that this article should not be named Diane Schuler, as this is an article about the crash and not a biography of Schuler. However, the current title needs to be tweaked, please. First, we should use the "real" name of the Parkway ... which, I believe, is Taconic State Parkway (adding in the word "State"). Second, we should include some designation (such as the year 2009, for example) since there has not been only one crash on the Taconic State Parkway. Third, the word "crash" should be lower-case, not capitalized, in the title. Therefore, I suggest 2009 Taconic State Parkway crash. Any thoughts? Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 11 September 2009)

I agree with your suggestion and have revised my recommendation accordingly. Location (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Sorry, but I just don't see what makes this so 'special'. It looks like from reading, it was just a woman who didn't know when to stop and a loyal husband stuck in denial. How is that any different from the many tragic stories that occur every day on our roads? The media coverage is not trivial, but it just a news item. No lasting notability; this story will just be replaced by the next tragedy. We aren't FOX News. Minute by minute descriptions look to me as desperate attempts to flesh out the article and make it appear that this article is more important than it actually is. The possible law that could come out of this is yet another news item; a politician capitalizing on the collective feeling as a result of saturated media coverage. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked user. There is a WP user User:Joseph A. Spadaro who was indefinitely blocked on 24 June. Is the person editing this page as an anon and signing himself as "Joseph A. Spadaro" connected to this blocked user? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

• Reported to the Administrators Noticeboard. I understand that yes, it is the same user, and have requested that one or more administrators review the situation to determine what should be done here. Risker (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, not the same person. One: I am certain that there are more than one Joseph A. Spadaro's floating around in the world. Two: I would be using the same exact name to avoid a block and to avoid suspicion of avoiding a block? When I can sign in anonymously under, say, "I Love Peanut Butter" or "Go Yankees" or any other of a zillion names that would cloak one in anonymity? Come on, man. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 13 September 2009)

And, Risker ... why are you concluding "yes"? When the person who responded to your concerns over at that ANI Board specifically replied with, "I didn't have time to research the IPs further" ...? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 13 September 2009)

On the the Administrators Noticeboard it is claimed that the IP addresses were the same. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

To - Xxanthippe ... my question was addressed to Risker. Or, are you the same person as Risker? If not, I am not sure how you would know his reasons. Please let me know. And ... back to the issue: If, in fact, they (IP addresses) are the same ... what "further research" would be necessary? If, in fact, they (IP addresses) are the same ... and no further research is needed, why would someone state: "I didn't have time to research the IPs further." ...? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 13 September 2009)

In answer to your question, the person verifying that you are the same editor (USer:J.delanoy) is a checkuser, who has access to additional information about certain characteristics of your IP, your ISP, and your useragent. For privacy and security reasons, the precise details linking accounts are not usually released publicly. Another administrator (the one you refer to in your post above) blocked the first two IPs you used here and, I assume, did not seek to identify any other IP you have been using. You are an indefinitely blocked editor. As I am involved in this discussion, I will not block the IP you are currently using; however, any uninvolved administrator can do so, as you are admitting that you are the same person editing logged out on a narrow IP range. It's quite possible that another administrator may block the entire IP range too. Risker (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am admitting what exactly? Please point out exactly where "I am admitting that I am the same person editing logged out on a narrow IP range." I barely even know what all that computer mumbo-jumbo and technical gibberish means, let alone would admit to something I barely comprehend. I'd like to know exactly where I admitted to such words that I don't even know, utilize, or comprehend. Second ... I am quite curious as to your agenda here. This (following) is my opinion. You wanted to delete this article. I strongly opposed that. You see that the consensus is not leading toward "delete", after about 7 days, as you would have liked. So, you stir up this other business. Third: I also find this quite curious. After 7 days of debate -- and after you post that other accusation against me -- geez, all of a sudden quite a few people (3) pipe in with a "delete" vote. They were not concerned all week about this AfD, and now they all offer a barely one-sentence delete vote, each parroting the other. Now that is interesting. Agreed? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 14 September 2009)

• Delete - just another DUI. If historical notability crops up that passes WP:NOT#NEWS, fine, but there's nothing here that makes it stand out. Ironholds (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete just another DUI - I see no historical notability or even any wider current debates from this. It's a wikinews story at best. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. This is a sad event, but its not likely to have any longstanding notability. ThemFromSpace 03:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Themfromspace. This is a clear clase of WP:NOT#NEWS.Singingdaisies (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (in supplement to Keep vote above): A son of the victims was on Good Morning America four days ago accusing Schuler's husband of being complicit in the accident. I really don't understand how this can be classified as "just another non-notable collision" when new developments like this are still being covered in detail in national news coverage nearly two months later. Propaniac (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There are over 600 Google news results for "diane schuler" in the past month. Propaniac (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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.