Talk:Kirby Delauter

Notices of previous related discussions and moves

Notices of previous related discussions:

The topic of this article and a draft for it was subject of nonstandard AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter, and at previous discussions the AFD referenced. The AFD was concluded "No consensus" (no consensus to require the draft to be placed in mainspace, and no consensus to delete the non-mainspace draft).

The topic and a draft were discussed at Talk page draft article: Draft talk:Kirby Delauter. (which has since been moved to Talk:Kirby Delauter/Archive 1)

A previous non-standard DRV discussion was at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter.

A previous AN discussion of the topic is archived at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive270#Review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter.

--doncram 13:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Draft:Kirby Delauter is now the early edits of Kirby Delauter: I history-merged them.
  • The original old edits of Kirby Delauter, which were a short article only about the name use and complaint, are now at Talk:Kirby Delauter/old short article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• I moved Draft talk:Kirby Delauter to Talk:Kirby Delauter/Archive 1. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

AFD notice

Request to an Administrator: In order to give notice about AFD going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter, could you please put the following on this redirect page (which i can't do as it is edit-protected): <!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled --> {{Article for deletion/dated|page=Kirby Delauter|timestamp=20150317191857|year=2015|month=March|day=17|substed=yes}} <!-- For administrator use only: {{Old AfD multi| page = Kirby Delauter | date = 17 March 2015 | result = '''keep''' | date2 = 14 March 2015 | result2 = '''no consensus''' | page2 = Kirby Delauter}} --> <!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->

with edit summary including "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter". [see amended request below]

The same notice is being placed on Draft:Kirby Delauter which contains a version suggested to be put into mainspace to replace the current redirect. (For explanation, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter and/or wp:AN discussion linked from there.)

This is just to comply with usual AFD instructions. Thanks! --doncram 20:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Per next section, a soft redirect is needed, else no one would see the AFD notice. So as an amended request, I ask for there to be a change from the current article:

#REDIRECT[[Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government]] {{R from person}}

to be replaced by:

<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled --> {{Article for deletion/dated|page=Kirby Delauter|timestamp=20150317191857|year=2015|month=March|day=17|substed=yes}} <!-- For administrator use only: {{Old AfD multi|page=Kirby Delauter|date=17 March 2015|result='''keep'''}} --> <!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> {{soft redirect|Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government}} {{R from person}}

--doncram 03:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Moot now...there other notices, and the AFD proceeded. --doncram 13:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 March 2015

Please implement request stated at Talk:Kirby Delauter#AFD notice to give notice on the Kirby Delauter page (currently a redirect) of the AFD in process. I ask now by {{edit protected}} request as the {{Admin help}} request hasn't worked. Thanks! --doncram 22:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC) doncram 22:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

No point in tagging a redirect, no one sees it. Users are obviously redirected right past it. But I really have no idea whats going on here but AfD isn't for article creation. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 23:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks EoRdE6. Well, it's a weird situation, not my doing. wp:AN is not where AFDs are supposed to be done, either. There is in fact an AFD going on, with useful discussion, and I am still just trying to get proper notice of the AFD placed. It won't be the end of the world if this is not done, but I am re-making a request, now revised.

I was thinking (mistakenly i guess) that if there's an AFD notice, that the reader would be paused at the redirect and see the AFD notice. But probably I was confused by a recent experience I had with an AFD about a soft redirect, where readers would see the AFD notice. So could the redirect further be changed to a wp:soft redirect, so the AFD notice would show? In this edit, I re-add the protected edit request, and I also amend the specific request above to implement a soft redirect. I request implemention of specific request at Talk:Kirby Delauter#AFD notice above (as revised). Again, it won't be the end of the world if this is not done, but it would be nice if it could be done. --doncram 03:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Moot....the edit protection in place on the article topic (which then was a redirect) expired. --doncram 13:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

article status and any next steps as of April 19

An editor redirected the article and I reverted the redirect just now. To Cirt and/or others: please recognize the status of the current article to be a new start of the article. Please note that all previously posed bureaucratic hurdles have been met, that there is no different venue discussion required by any consensus that applies, and that per discussion at Draft talk:Kirby Delauter#Move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter (since moved to Talk:Kirby Delauter/Archive 1#Move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter), there has been good-faith, legitimate frustration among editors about the repeated hurdles and the previous change-of-venue requirements imposed. (For example editor Cunard noted there: "The admins involved cannot agree among themselves about where to discuss the article draft. One admin suggested an informal AfD. When this was taken to AfD, the closing admin then suggested taking this back to DRV. We've been discussing this since January 2015. Three months!".) All process hurdles have now been met for this re-start to be proper.

Please consider: There is now no requirement to delete or redirect the new article version put in place by Bangabandhu's edit at 03:44, 19 April 2015 (which copied in draft developed at Draft:Kirby Delauter), and there is no consensus established that this version is deficient in any way at all. The version is a proper-process new start of an article in mainspace. It does not represent a mere restoration of a speedy-deleted version. The re-start here was done in good faith as any editor is allowed, and it is a well-considered step, not a rash one. The draft for this re-start was developed gradually at Draft:Kirby Delauter, and the re-start of mainspace article by copying in of that draft as just done was discussed in advance (at Draft talk:Kirby Delauter (since moved to Talk:Kirby Delauter/Archive 1) and at discussion at the Talk page of the closer of recent non-standard AFD).

Procedurally, the way forward for any serious objections to the mainspace presence of the article of this version:

• IS NOT to restore a redirect and require an RFD discussion (the new start is allowed, and the text of the new start has been evaluated already as different from previous, in non-standard AFD just completed)
• IS NOT to require a DRV discussion (there is no need or usefulness to appeal the no consensus closure of non-standard AFD just completed)
• IS NOT to speedy-delete as no speedy-deletion criteria apply (see comments, including mine, in above-linked "discussed in advance" locations)

but rather now only

• IS to open a new, standard AFD if you wish.

(or to use regular editing processes to improve this article in place, with discussion here at Talk:Kirby Delauter.)

sincerely, --doncram 14:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You can go to DRV if you wish to restore this to mainspace. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you see it that way, Tarc. I do appreciate that you replied here. IMO there is no requirement in Wikipedia that this or any other article creation/restart be done only after a "consensus to support" is achieved, and this is not a restoration (the article is significantly different than the version discussed in the "informal AFD" at wp:AN), and this is not unilateral (there has been careful discussion, including in the non-standard AFD that just concluded "no consensus", here on this Talk page, and at the closer (Sandstein)'s talk page). Sandstein noted about AFD arguments that "If you disagree with the original (speedy) deletion, that would need to be contested at WP:DRV.", but the AFD participants were not disagreeing about the original deletion. What was being discussed was a new draft version. As Sandstein noted: "if the new draft is substantially different from the speedily deleted one, anybody can recreate the article with it". So, Tarc, I would appreciate if you would clarify why you think going to DRV is necessary. Please note I don't personally dispute the wp:AN original deletion decision/outcome. And I don't personally dispute Sandstein's closure as "no consensus" of the non-standard/not-technically-proper AFD. If you will reply, Tarc, could you please clarify what is the decision that you think a DRV would have to consider overturning.

This is after Tarc redirected at 15:14, 19 April 2015‎ with "(rv: For the previously-given reason. Establish consensus, either at DRV or a discussion on a talk page, first. There is no consensus to support unilateral restoration.)", following my restoration of the restarted article at 13:22 with "(Undid revision. Restore, as per AFD (closed no consensus), there was no consensus to "delete" draft. Meets no speedy delete criterion. See Talk:Kirby Delauter.)", after Tarc's 04:34, 19 April 2015‎ "(rv: Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter there was no consensus to restore this at this time.)".

To others, if Tarc does not wish to reconsider or reply further, then I am not happy. I don't want DRV to overturn anything, and I can't sensibly make a DRV request. Also I don't think pursuing a DRV is the right way to press the procedural point of whether going to DRV is the next step. Rather, I think it is clear from Wikipedia policies and definitions for DRV, AFD, etc., that the right way forward is to make the content edit. I don't want to engage in edit-warring, so I don't think I should revert Tarc a second time. I don't think Tarc should engage in edit-warring either. Tarc obviously feels justified in reverting back to a redirect. I don't see Tarc's justification, but I sense that Tarc must feel strongly that this article version is a wp:ATTACKPAGE or otherwise a blatant BLP violation and/or that this article version is not significantly different than the original article discussed at wp:AN (so that Tarc believes wp:G4 applies). I sense that Tarc feels that something is so obvious that it doesn't require discussion here, hence Tarc's terse comment (again though I appreciate Tarc providing that).

Purely on procedure, what I think would be correct now is for another supporter of the article to revert Tarc and restore the revised article a second time If you support the content of the revised article, then restoring it is the way to put the matter back on the table. For Tarc or anyone else who opposes the revised article, they have no reason to comment if the content is not put in mainspace by your restoration of it.

Then, procedurally, if Tarc reverts again and does not seriously engage in discussion here, then in my view that constitutes edit-warring already, and the procedural way forward is to open edit-warring (wp:ANEW) procedure against Tarc. (Tarc has not done that, and I am not advocating edit warring by Tarc or anyone else, and I prefer and hope that Tarc will seriously discuss the issues here instead.) An edit-warring case would be more clear if a third article-supporter reverted Tarc and Tarc redirected yet again for a 4th time. It's also possible that others besides Tarc can oppose the article now and can become involved, in which case they should discuss here instead of engaging in edit-warring, also. Some notice of need for some resolution of issues here might be announced elsewhere, but anyone doing so should be careful to avoid violation of wp:CANVASS's four requirements.

I am serious that proceeding this way is what I believe to be the proper, civilized, rules-of-order-compliant process to follow. I could be wrong in my view--maybe there is a better way--but this is based on my readings of Wikipedia principles, policies and guidelines, and this is informed by my experience (and for example I do not wish to seek resolution at wp:ANI, which I do not see as an appropriate venue). I welcome Tarc or others' comments that could possibly change my mind about the process now, or about the article content. But just following Wikipedia principles, policies and guidelines in this way is the proper way forward, I believe. Also I make no suggestion that anyone is not acting, or will not act, in good faith in this matter.

So, right now I hope Tarc will further reply. If after allowing for that (24 hours?), there is not productive discussion, then I would ask for other article supporters to restore the article, and to give their justification here too.

respectfully, --doncram 18:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing to add that I didn't already say the other day. There was no consensus for this 1event subject to have a standalone article. If you wish to establish consensus, that should be doen either here or at Deletion Review. Also, there's really no need to use my name 2-dozen+ times in one post. That was just...weird/creepy to read. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you further elaborate what makes you think guidelines on one event prohibit this article? Are you referring to one of the early versions of the article, or the latest one which does not give undue weight to the event? Bangabandhu (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Those are arguments to save for DRV, or wherever you choose to take this. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we establish (or confirm, as I think it exists) consensus on this page, right now? Its not clear to me if you are reverting the change because you believe the version violates one-event policy or only because you think consensus does not exist? Bangabandhu (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Both, really, as I voted in the AfD to delete. That last point that this was at is that there was a draft version created by Cunard, the discussion of what to do with it was closed as "no consensus". When there's no consensus, the status quo is generally held to until/unless consensus is formed. As to the where and the how such a discussion should take place, I really don't know, maybe DRV...I'm sure some smart cookies around here can figure it out. What I do know however is that a single user should not be the oen to decide to just plop it right back into article-space...doubly do when it is user Doncram, who per WP:RESTRICT is prohibited from creating new pages. Restoring a draft to mainspace is walking a fine line of that restriction IMO. As always with borderline 1-events, my primary advice is really to just "move on". You've got a minor, minor town-level public figure who did one thing to get some press, with a smattering of routine coverage for other things. Like most 1-event fights, the draft article now looks like blood-squeezed-from-a-stone, written by an inclusionist-minded editor looking to make a point against those who want to delete it rather than an honest intent to improve the encyclopedia; every tiny mention in a source is magnified to give the illusion of notability. There are much more important topics to write about, crowd-sourced bios of marginal individuals are one of the worst and weakest areas of this project. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know anything about Doncram's history and it was interesting to read WP:RESTRICT. Had I known it would have changed my interaction, as I read his earlier comments to have an air of authority and influence. Putting aside his involvement, I'm not sure I understand your reasoning behind assessing the article's notability. DeLauter is the elected representative of more then 27,000 citizens. At least for me, Wikipedia would be my first source if I were his constituent and wanted to learn more about him. So to some people, especially his constituents and those who are interested in Maryland politics, the entry is notable. As for the one event issue, by preventing the redirect you're actually exaggerating the influence of the one event. Right now, anyone interested will search Google and find articles about the one event. The cached wikipedia article might be found, which also only focuses on the one event. You're right that the draft that exists is bloated, but if it is moved to the mainspace, I am sure it will be edited down appropriately. Because of the speedy deletion, editors really haven't had that opportunity (I only knew how to find this page two days ago!) Perhaps you could allow the redirect and after a bit of time if you still think that the article reads "like blood-squeezed-from-a-stone" you can move to a deletion review discussion. Bangabandhu (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• The article should be restored to mainspace. Sandstein wrote in response to Hobit (my bolding):

  Well, I wrote in the closing statement what I believe the correct fora would be, depending on what one wishes to discuss. If you disagree with the original (speedy) deletion, that would need to be contested at WP:DRV. To add another complication: if the new draft is substantially different from the speedily deleted one, anybody can recreate the article with it, and if the only thing preventing this is the protection on the redirect, one can go to WP:RPP and ask for the protection to be lifted. But what you can't do is use AfD, a process intended to ask for the deletion of mainspace pages, to ask for the creation of an article - that turns the purpose of the process on its head. So far, the community has declined to unify all the xFD processes into a single "pages for discussion" scheme, which personally speaking might be a better idea, but as it is we're stuck with using the processes there are for their intended purposes.

  All that aside, in this discussion, I can't find consensus for or against recreation. Opinions are roughly divided, and they are about such issues as BLP1E, which is a matter of individual judgment, and not something that I as the closer can decide by fiat. As always, if there's no consensus, the status quo doesn't change - meaning, in this case, that the article isn't recreated. Sorry.  Sandstein  06:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  There is no policy-based reason to prevent the article draft from being returned to mainspace. {{db-repost}} does not apply because the deleted content is completely different from this draft. Articles are created on Wikipedia every day without a committee approving or denying submissions. It is unnecessary to gain consensus to recreate an article about a topic that has never been deleted at an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion.

  WP:DRV is not the proper venue for discussion because this has already been discussed at DRV. DRV upheld the speedy deletion which I am not contesting. And DRV can only rule on whether {{db-repost}} applies (it clearly does not), not on article content.

  Cunard (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think Cunard you are right and that was all very well said. I argued above that the proper way forward is to restore the article, at least if there is not ongoing discussion that is productive in a way that could change people's opinion here. Here is the venue for discussion of this article; no other venue applies, as would only be confirmed after some delay at any other venue. Anyone can restore the revised article.... oh... except maybe me....

About my restoring the revised article and then immediately self-reverting just now: I am busy in real life, and what happened was I came back onto Wikipedia and to here, and after reading this discussion down through the short post at 17:12, 20 April, I went over to check the article status (still a redirect), checked its history (saw no further activity after my one restore and its reversion). And I was sure enough about the arguments to just revert, to restore the article. I did so with edit summary "As discussed at Talk page, DRV not relevant. No consensus is required for a revised article (and AFD closer agrees). Not unilateral. Not a restoratiion." That edit summary responded to the edit summary of the edit that I reverted. Then I came back here to probably add a comment, and I read further and was reminded of the edit restriction argument that I shouldn't be the one restoring the article. Argh. I myself disclosed my edit restriction and I was the person who first suggested, within this general discussion (specifically at Draft talk:Kirby Delauter#Move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter, search for word "restrict" to see), that I wasn't the best person to restore the article here, for reason of the edit restriction which at least arguably applied. It would be best for me to avoid any appearance, etc. But, sorry, I had a short memory or was distracted or was over-focused on the merits here, and my suggestion over there had never been confirmed or reinforced in any way by anyone else, and I just had refreshed myself here by re-reading my arguments above. My arguments above were general and I did not mention the edit restriction that could possibly apply for me. So anyhow it wasn't in mind at all. But then I see the post at 18:16, 20 April 2015, in which an editor names me and states that I should not be the one. The editor even provides a convenient link to the statement of restriction. I don't want to argue whether restoring an article that has been redirected is the same as creating a new article or not, or on which side of a fine line it lies; that would be off-topic here, and I might even agree that it was over the line. The editor who posted that was perfectly correct in what they said. (Also, by the way, please accept my apology for over-using an editor's name above. The repetition is jarring to me, too, when I read it now. Really, I am.)

By the way, I don't feel like any kind of pariah despite having that restriction in place, and it's probably accurate that i speak sometimes with an "air of authority and influence". I do have a lot of Wikipedia experience. Thanks for the compliment. :) The fact that I have an edit restriction in place is not relevant here. But... I was a tad irritated that no one had restored the article... I think editors in this discussion, even with relatively short Wikipedia experience, should have more confidence. Several editors have discussed this out well enough, and your reasoning is very reasonable. That no other venue has to be consulted. That going to any other venue would almost certainly result in a conclusion that the venue was not the correct one. That you really have gotten confirmation that anyone can/should restore the article. And if you assess that there's a rough consensus here in favor of the article, or more support than opposition and you have considered the quality of the arguments made here, then you should have confidence in your assessment of that. Certainly there is not a consensus here against the article, and there's no compelling argument explained out, here on this page, that makes it clear the article should not exist, IMO, but what do you think? There is some opposition, but it is of this-is-a-grey-area nature, IMO, but what do you think? You can decide what you think is right, and act on it. And, as for any article, if there are persons who really think the article is on the wrong side of a line and it should not exist, then their option is to take it AFD, where uninvolved editors who specialize in AFD decisions will find it and participate. Well, anyhow, I am busy in real life, and don't expect to participate more here, or at least not much more. I hope you all trust in your own judgment when it is based on your arguments expressed clearly, and when there are no other arguments successfully refuting yours. Getting some practice and building your confidence like that in general (as well as learning to apply your good judgment to "pick your battles") is probably more important than whichever way this topic is settled for a while. Good luck. cheers, --doncram 02:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Kirby Delauter again mentioned in the Washington Post. Nothing to do with the 1E. Wouldn't it be great if their readers had another resource to learn more about him? Bangabandhu (talk)

Okay, Doncram (talk · contribs), I've restored the article based on the arguments made by you, Bangabandhu, and myself. Cunard (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I've requested a history merge of Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter. Cunard (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Bangabandhu (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you to Cunard. In three edits within this diff I just added "See also" links to other inaugural county council-members, and I worked in as Delauter-relevant the Washington Post / Scientology / Narconon / Camp David / The West Wing-related current news story of wide interest that Bangabandhu referenced above. I think I did that reasonably well, if I do say so myself. :) --doncram 22:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, while Jan H. Gardner and Jessica Fitzwater have articles now, it still would be good to create articles for Bud Otis, Billy Shreve, Jerry Donald, Tony Chmelik, and M.C. Keegan-Ayer (all red-links currently), too. (Relatedly, watch Draft: Bud Otis, Draft:Billy Shreve, Draft:Jerry Donald, Draft:Tony Chmelik, and Draft:M.C. Keegan-Ayer.) --doncram 22:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparent article history

• Page Kirby Delauter from its start to 13:35, 18 March 2015‎ MSGJ is a short article centering on the name use incident and complaint.
  • Page Draft:Kirby Delauter is a new long article describing him generally.
  • At 03:34, 19 April 2015‎ Bangabandhu copy-and-pasted Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter, overwriting the original short article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Any copy-paste around 19 April 2015 was actually overwriting a redirect from "Kirby Delauter" to a section within "Frederick County, Maryland", specifically to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government. The original short article had been redirected to there. The redirect was in place while "Draft:Kirby Delauter" was developed by several editors. The edit history of this "Kirby Delauter" article no longer shows the redirect being overwritten, because the edit history of "Draft:Kirby Delauter" has been history-moved in here.--doncram 00:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional content and organization

For an entry that needs to be streamlined, I think recent edits have made it more unwieldy. I think this belongs in the talk section, or possibly somewhere in the body, but not the lede. Bangabandhu (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do go ahead and move it and revise it. That's material I added which I mentioned I thought was good, in terms of it working in wider/national relevance of issues before the county council, hence supporting notability of K.D. and other councilors. I do concede, once you point it out, that I agree it should not be in the lede--it is not especially about K.D.. I would appreciate if you could try to revise/rework its use in the article, reducing if necessary, and if it really doesn't work then it should be dropped entirely--or perhaps moved to here, the Talk page, in a note towards informing future discussion of notability of P.D., which has been disputed previously. Or perhaps it should be moved/reworked into the Frederick County articles' section about the council. I did think the material plays a good role in solidifying the ongoing notability of the K.D. topic within this article itself, and is interesting, and is net good to have in, at least for a while. If K.D. notability had not been a matter of so much dispute, though, I don't think I would have been motivated to add it. Anyhow, do whatever you think is best. --doncram 14:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The addition is cited to this article from The Washington Post and says:

Delauter and fellow members of the inaugural Frederick County Council have been mentioned during 2014-2015 in the national-stature Washington Post newspaper among and other newspapers, with their newsworthiness perhaps due in part to the council being new, and also perhaps due to the council having issues come before it that are of wide interest. For example, in April 2015, the council was to vote on a county historical designation for Trout Run, a private and presidential retreat near Thurmont, Maryland that was controversial because it would enable a Scientology-affiliated drug rehabilitation program, Narconon, to open a facility there. Besides being of historical interest for Herbert Hoover and other presidents having fished there, Trout Run is also of wider interest as the filming location for The West Wing's representations of U.S. presidential retreat Camp David, less than five miles away, also within Frederick County.

The first sentence is original research because the source does not discuss the "newsworthiness" of the council and Delauter. And the paragraph is mostly about Trout Run and isn't about Delauter himself. I recommend removing the entire paragraph, moving it to another article (such as to Trout Run (retreat), or heavily trimming it.

Cunard (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence is a generalization that is simply true. Or simply not false, depending on how you look at it. "There's coverage perhaps due to X or perhaps due to Y." You can't prove that's wrong. So it is vacuous, actually, but perhaps a helpful finesse to establish Delauter is again in the news and to bolster expectation that Delauter will continue to be in the news. Sentence 1 is reasonable given the example explained in sentences 2 and 3, isn't it? And lede paragraphs and summary sentences don't need to be footnoted, if they're reasonable in context of the rest of the article or paragraph that follows, as long as no one disputes them (not the case here). Sentences 2 and 3 are factual and are what is directly supported by the footnote. You can argue that sentence 1 is wp:OR, or wp:SYNTHESIS, or the like, and hence bad. I thought it was clever, and good, when I put it in; your taste differs which is fine. I already agreed it should be changed: moved, revised or dropped entirely; please do whatever you think best. :) --doncram 03:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)