Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 28: Difference between revisions
simplify |
blanking per OTRS ticket |
||
Line 334: | Line 334: | ||
:{{la|Lynette Nusbacher}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Lynette Nusbacher|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Lynette Nusbacher}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynette Nusbacher|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
:{{la|Lynette Nusbacher}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Lynette Nusbacher|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Lynette Nusbacher}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynette Nusbacher|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
||
(debate blanked as a courtesy to the subject) |
|||
Published author[http://www.amazon.co.uk/1314-Bannockburn-J-S-Nusbacher/dp/0752429825/ref=sr_1_2/203-2434660-6490316?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188262583&sr=1-2] [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Conflict-Face-Facts-Aryeh-Nusbacher/dp/0739864351/ref=sr_1_1/203-2434660-6490316?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188262826&sr=1-1]A collection of fairly notable TV appearances [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1655167/] The privacy intrusions relate to stuff published in various places including the sun readership 7.8 million [[User:Geni|Geni]] 01:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Note to closer''' - this is a review of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Lynette+Nusbacher 23:54, 27 August 2007 speedy deletion] by [[User:Animum|Animum]] (reason given "[[WP:CSD#A7|CSD A7]] (Bio) and [[WP:BLP|BLP]] concerns: Biographical article that does not assert significance; complaints about privacy intrusions."). -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''[[User:Jreferee|<font color="Blue">Jreferee</font>]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Jreferee|Talk]])''</sup></font> 19:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion'''. The article was an orphan; the subject of the article [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Violation_of_privacy|requested deletion]] as preferable to having an uncensored article. For better or worse, the most noted fact about the subject in the last year is the fact that the subject does not want revealed. [[WP:BLP]] recommends deletion where marginally notable living people request it. [[User:THF|THF]] 01:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*<s>'''overturn''' Nusbacher is a highly notable and public person. The private detail is already all over the internet and obvious to anyone who is already familiar with Nusbacher's work. BLP is not to help people protect against details that have been widely reported. When the cat is out of the bag, it isn't our business to help stuff it back in. While I understand Nusbacher's concern, Wikipedia [[WP:NOT|is not censored]] and doesn't exist to make people feel better. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 03:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)</s> Changing to abstaining for now. I didn't realize how few reliable sources there were (this may be a good example of erroneously assuming that just because I've heard of someone doesn't mean they are that notable). I still think that Nusbacher's public role makes it difficult to give the BLP concern that much weight. However, the lack of many sources means that Nusbacher's notability is also not that high. I could probably change my mind if more sourcing was presented (especially if some of the non-English pages could be shown to be reliable). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*: The foreign-language pages are, so far as I've been able to tell, based entirely on the ''Sun'' article. [[User:NetNus|NetNus]] 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn deletion''' I'm not certain that I think the subject to be notable, such that I'm not sure I'd !vote to keep this at AfD, and I'm not even certain that the deleted article made any grand assertion of notability. The implicit assertion, though, is sufficient to render this eminently un-[[WP:CSD#A7|A7]]able (and were it not, the links adduced by Geni certainly suggest [probably persuasively] notability), and, in view of the subject's being volitionally public and putatively notable for involvement [[WP:BLP1E|other than in one event]] and the article's not being facially inconsistent with [[WP:BLP|BLP]], speedy deletion under BLP is unwarranted (it is my long-standing and oft-expressed view that speedy deletion per BLP [though not, of course, in the context of [[WP:CSD#G10|G10]]] ought never to be undertaken, but deletion here fails even under the [only] somewhat more rigid BLP speedy scheme for which the community may reasonably be understood as having given its support). [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 03:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Comment''' It should further be said that one might think BLP, inter al., to counsel against the inclusion of the subject's birth name but nevertheless think speedy deletion to be inappropriate; considering the article without the principal (and ostensibly most pernicious) problem about which the subject complains, which we should do unless it is to be assumed that the problem will continue to exist by the very fact of the article's existing, we are left only to evaluate the applicability of A7, about which there seems really to be little question. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 04:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
***Given that the article cannot be reasonably written without disclosure of the most noted fact about the person, the question is one of whether the person is so notable that BLP1E does not apply. The article was an orphan: deleting the article does not create any redlinks and does not hurt the encyclopedia. Is there any real chance of this article surviving an AFD and the encyclopedia disregarding Nusbacher's wishes for privacy? If so, then I agree we should overturn, but if not, it seems pointless and disruptive to force this through a five-day AFD that will just have to be blanked. The fact that the Wikipedia page is the first page in the Google search <s>suggests a lack of notability, and</s> gives a very good reason for the subject of the page not to want to have a Wikipedia page about her, regardless of the extent of press coverage. It's the difference between having a university page be the first Google result and a Wikipedia page as the first Google result. [[User:THF|THF]] 04:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
****First Google result for France is Wikipedia. Would you argue that this suggests that France lacks notability? Personally I really rather doubt you could get the thing deleted through AFD.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 11:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*****No. My point is that the fact that Wikipedia is the first Google result is a reason why a person can be legitimately more concerned about a violation of privacy from Wikipedia than from a British tabloid. The latter will disappear in birdcages and trashcans and quickly forgotten about. Wikipedia will still be there as the person tries to create a new life. I'm skeptical that she has any chance of reaching her goal (as the six-page-long discussion on a military history chatboard suggests), but BLP requires Wikipedia to respect her wishes. [[User:THF|THF]] 12:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
****** Being required "respect her wishes" does not mean they get are all that matters. When someone is sufficiently notable that isn't the way it works. All the more so when the information is easily obtainable by a quick internet search. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Strong Overturn''' I've questioned THF so that he might elaborate here; for now, this seems like the silliest case of BLP deletion I've ever seen. Individual is a public person by virtue of her television role. I don't understand the significance of this "unmentionable fact" -- but it seems to be easily correctable by editing (and page moving), ''if'' its disclosure is wrong. As yet, I see no evidence that disclosure of the fact would be wrong. BLP is meant to protect ''vulnerable'' ''non-public'' persons -- not folks who make themselves noteworthy by agreeing to work in television. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 14:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*:I don't understand the significance of the unmentionable fact, either, given that it is obvious, other than that the subject does not want it mentioned on Wikipedia and asked for the deletion of her article, which takes it directly within BLP deletion, given [[WP:NPF]]. This isn't a movie star or a prominent politician. It's a talking head academic on little-seen documentaries who has an issue she does not want publicized, but whose article will necessarily need to mention the issue if it is to be meaningful or accurate. Has anyone [[WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards|discussed this with the administrator who speedy-deleted the article]]? [[User:THF|THF]] 14:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*::Our disagreement, then, is relatively simple, and can be expressed in one sentiment: I fervently believe that no one who voluntarily receives payment for on-screen appearances in the television/film industry is "relatively unknown". Even the lowest-rated TV show or most boring movie reaches a sizable audience, given enough time. WP:NPF does not apply, as the person's actions have placed her within the sphere of public renown. I have already mentioned, at your talk page, how one might have an article without necessarily revealing the unmentionable fact. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 14:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*:::We have a second disagreement: I don't think the article can or should be written without the unmentionable fact. The only time Nusbacher has received international press coverage is for the one thing she does not want mentioned and, while I wouldn't edit the article myself over this, you underestimate the strong demand a faction of activists will have to include the publicly-available information in the article, which is going to be incomprehensible for those who reach it via redirects without that information. With respect to your other point, [[Michele Seipp]] has received payment for on-screen appearances in television and film. Is she [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0782653/ relatively unknown]? My grandfather was paid for appearing on [[Meet the Press]], and I look forward to someone creating the [[Nelson Frank]] article. [[User:THF|THF]] 14:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*::::When I say that someone isn't "relatively unknown", that doesn't mean that they are automatically notable -- whether Mr. Frank or Ms. Seipp or notable is an open question to be evaluated according to guidelines and consensus. However, when one is paid for appearing on film/television, one makes oneself "publicly known" -- responsible for what one says in the public sphere. The things one says may not be notable, but one has stipulated a qualified waiver of one's rights to privacy. If one happens to say something notable (or appears frequently enough to become otherwise notable through repetition), one cannot plead one's status as a "relative unknown" to prevent mention of oneself in an encyclopedia. Being on TV doesn't get one in Wikipedia, but it does prevent one from forestalling ''even deliberation concerning'' whether one belongs in an encyclopedia. (This is contrast to a crime-victim or witness, a disease sufferer, etc. who might enter into public note through no choice of their own.) |
|||
*::::On the other point, the way to demonstrate whether an article may be maintained is to attempt so doing, not to delete it without trying. [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 15:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Endorse deletion'''. The article was unsourced in all revisions, as far as I can tell, and since Google shows of the order of tens of hits for "Lynette Nusbacher" and only around 300, mostly publication citations for "Aryeh Nusbacher" it does not look as if it will be easy to come up with a proper independently sourced biography that rises above the level of a directory entry. Anyone wants to work up a scratch version of a properly sourced biography, I guess we could review it again. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 15:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn''' there was enough assertion of notability to overcome A7, I am having a hard time finding a BLP issue that would require deletion, and as for lack of sourcing, if that were a speedy criteria somewhere along the line I think that would have been documented - maybe it should be but that's another discussion. [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] 17:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Having reviewed several links, I can pretty well figure out what she's complaining about, but I fail to see how that is a BLP violation. '''Undelete''', well-known author and lecturer, it's possible to write a neutral account of what she's upset about, the subject doesn't get to decide whether or not they can have an article. Has this gone to [[WP:OTRS]]? [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 18:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Very strong endorse''' - requested for privacy concerns, but most importantly, ''I can't find any reliable sources on this person'' despite their having some publications and some credits on IMDB and no one has presented any. The list of publications looks very thin compared to what [[WP:PROF]] would expect. The appearances as an expert does tend to pass [[WP:PROF]] but without any reliable sources, we just shouldn't have an article. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 18:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*:These look like [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] to me: [http://www.sandhurst.mod.uk/academic/nusbacher.htm], [http://www.sandhurstfoundation.org/LeadershipEncounters.asp]. There are also a lot of sites in foreign languages that I can't read, and can't tell if they're reliable. [[User:Corvus cornix|Corvus cornix]] 18:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*::No, those aren't reliable. The first is a faculty profile, surely self-supplied. The second is a talk announcement with a bio, again, these are normally self-supplied. Even if they were reliable, they're effectively vacuous. As for the foreign language sites, I don't know what you're referring to, but if they're on academic websites they're probably not reliable for similar reasons. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 02:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Overturn, but read this carefully''': As a talking head academic on various TV programs, passes [[WP:PROF]]. Note, however, that anything sourced to tabloids is ''not'' permissible in an article in terms of [[WP:BLP]]. ''Thus the concerns that this individual has are already addressed in our policies''. If in the future multiple reliable sources decide this incident is noteworthy, then we can revisit the problem. [[User:Hornplease|Hornplease]] 19:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*:in some academic field name changes (even as minor as losing an initial) are important since if you don't know about them it becomes tricky to track publications. No idea if this applies to history.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 23:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Can I add to this that Wikipedia's non-tabloid policy aside, the ''Sun'' article about me was almost entirely fictitious. [[User:NetNus|NetNus]] 20:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Sorry ... one other point. The information that I don't want to see published is in the nature of private medical history. Indeed, the Sun's printing medical details was a violation of the Press Complaints Commission's regulations. [[User:NetNus|NetNus]] 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*:Thank you for stopping by; I was wondering whether to leave a note on your talkpage. Are we to suppose that, as long as vigilant WP editors ensure that no mention of details sourced to tabloids enter the article, you personally will no longer consider the article problematic? (I cannot claim that it will alter the decision, as there are strong precedents against letting the subject of the article's wishes overrule Wikipedia guidelines on notability, but some of us would probably want to know.) [[User:Hornplease|Hornplease]] 01:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*:When the tabloid newspaper in question came to the PR guy at my work to say they were writing a story about me and ask for a quote, the PR guy said, "this is a non-story. It's a violation of privacy." The reporter said, "no, it's a royal story. Dr Nusbacher is just collateral damage." In the weeks after the story ran, not a single UK newspaper or other media outlet picked up the story. This supports the PR guy's point, I think. Every single WWW hit that mentions the issue (barring perhaps one forum posting where somebody confirms the ''Sun'' story by citing the telephone directory where I work) quotes the ''Sun'' story (and, true to the ''Sun'' 's emphasis, leads with the royal material). This is borne out by the artifacts of translation: the Spanish-language press translates the ''Sun'' 's pun about "battle" to create the fiction that I was involved in some court battle. And, as I said above, the story itself is almost entirely made-up -- not surprising if all they had was a (paid) anonymous tip and no input from anyone who actually knew anything. The only reason I haven't taken any kind of action against the tabloid is because I fear that they would take that as an excuse to revive this story. Because the tabloid story is the only source of this personal information, then yes, the entry would cease to be problematical if the tabloid-sourced material were kept out. Mind you, the spectre of a zealous Wikipedia contributor making it a personal mission to publicly reveal my medical history and thus put it all on a factual basis wouldn't make me happy. The entry as it stood was taken from two sources: a potted biography on my former web site (the "shores of Lake Ontario" wording was mine) written by me and intended for people who had to introduce my lectures, and from a description of a television show that I worked on (which has its own Wikipedia entry). So, although I didn't put together the original entry, about half of it was sourced to me. -- [[User:NetNus|NetNus]] 07:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Thank you, that was very informative. To other editors: it looks like [[WP:Coatrack]] is not as inapplicable here as I thought. [[User:Hornplease|Hornplease]] 21:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Strongly concur with deletion.''' NetNus makes the compelling point that the dissemination of private medical history is always inappropriate, and in many jurisdictions legally actionable, whether this person is "known" or "unknown" is quite beside the point. She wishes it deleted – respect her wishes and delete the reference without delay. --[[User:Rentee|Rentee]] 04:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse''' per THF and Rentee [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 11:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion''' per Guy, etc... [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 12:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse speedy deletion''' per [[WP:CSD#A7|CSD A7]]. Being a lecturer at Sandhurst who taught Princes William and Harry is not significant enough to overcome [[WP:CSD#A7|CSD A7]]. The other event is not significant enough to overcome [[WP:CSD#A7|CSD A7]] since it happens to many people. And only one news article mentions the combination of the two, which shows its relatively insignificance. There are a few articles discussing [[Aryeh Nusbacher]], but not enough to meet [[WP:N]]. The [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1655167/ TV roles] are played by himself, and do not provide information that is independent of Aryeh Nusbacher. An article on this topic was and would amount to nothing more than a [[Wikipedia:Coatrack]] [[WP:BLP|BLP]] violation. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''[[User:Jreferee|<font color="Blue">Jreferee</font>]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Jreferee|Talk]])''</sup></font> 20:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse''', nothing has been written ''about'' this person that's in-depth enough to support an article. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 02:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse deletion''' An article without the tabloid can be written at a later point if desired. Has anyone appropriately warned the editor who originally created the article or added the tabloid material? [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 18:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
|- |
|- |
Revision as of 22:24, 7 September 2007
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This should be fairly straightforward, hopefully. The page was apparently the victim of repeated attempts to insert a barely notable, unflattering incident into the bio. Since the article was a stub there were both WP:UNDUE and BLP issues. It survived an AfD in January, but was speedied & protected in June by Jimbo Wales after an OTRS request (#2007011710000088). I rescued the uncontroversial, cited content via a WP mirror and placed it in Ten O'Clock Classics, an organisation Mr Segev co-founded, where it subsequently proved useful. Anyhoo, I posted at JW's talk page the other day to request that instead of being a protected deletion, could Ronen Segev be a protected redirect to Ten O'Clock Classics? He seems amenable to the idea (see User talk:Jimbo Wales#Deletion/protection of Ronen Segev), but since I suspect he doesn't do much in the way of sysop housekeeping these days, I said I'd just bring it here. Cheers. --DeLarge 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The talk page has claimed to be delted for a page that does not exist per WP:CSD#G8, but the main page did exist at the date of deltetion of, 29 June 2007 this page needs to be restore so I can contest a new PROD on that page. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 20:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Arguments to keep are a stone's throw from WP:ILIKEIT and do not address main issues of lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. Assuming AfD really is not a vote, arguments to delete that point out the article's failure to meet basic policy/guidelines without sufficient -- in this case, much of any -- refutation should lead to that article's deletion. --EEMeltonIV 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Wow, what a frustrating process this is! This page was nominated for deletion a month or so ago, I exchanged some messages about it on this board, and an admin ended up closing the debate and reinstating the page. Now I check back and it's gone again! I can't find any more debate, and since the page is gone there's no Talk page. What happened?? EricAlderman 18:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I believe that the closing admin on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reality_film misinterpretated the debate as "no consensus." There was a consensus to delete the article because it's about a neologism. Pixelface 14:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Much more notable now than when deleted. 30,000+ google hits. There are also articles relating to this at Knytt and Nifflas that pass notability guidelines, so this should too. Phyte 13:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This needs a full discussion. It appears to have been speedy deleted without an AfD. Miss Teen South Carolina, 3rd runner up for 2007 Miss Teen USA and a huge internet sensation (over
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
First off, I disagree with the closer of the initial deletion debate who found that "consensus equals Wikipedia is not a directory." Review the debate yourself and I think you will find that the comments are rather mixed in their support the of deletion. I also disagree with the deletion itself. While Wikipedia certainly isn't a directory it does contain numerous lists of notable items which pertain to an entry including the List of library and information science programs, which is obviously very similar to the PPE list (disclosure: I did recently update the library programs entry). I would also argue the sheer utility (which several members argued in the initial debate) of the PPE list. PPE is an unusual major and, as such, no list of programs seems to exist on the internet. As many of the PPE programs are small, not very well publicized, and, at times go by other names, Wikipedia is ideal for the creation of a PPE list. Individuals either participating or interested in participating in a PPE program will naturally find the PPE entry and list and would likely contribute the programs they know of. Furthermore, the frequent additions of program information to the main PPE entry (which is exactly what I did) indicates there is a definite interest in a PPE list. The deletion of this article has not merely destroyed unique and useful information but has prevented and continues to prevent the creation of such information. -- Patrick Mhnin0 06:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Many will say that this is typical nationalistic story. In the end this is true but my problem is that wikipedia must be neutral because of what it is not possible that she has article Serbophobia and not Croatophobia. Both words are created during or after Yugoslav wars. To show examples of Croatophobia I am giving this 2 links which has been in article (I have forget others..): [16] (Croats do not exist but they are catholic Serbs) and [17] (on Croato-Serbian) order to Serbian media for not writing Croat forces but Ustaša hordes. Better sources are in new article deleted yesterday but...Article which is deleted yesterday is similar to article deleted before bit it is different article !! To say simple my position we need to have both articles or both must be deleted. Any other solution is POV.Rjecina 03:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
(debate blanked as a courtesy to the subject) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |