Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 30: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Moreschi (talk | contribs)
19,434 edits
→‎Seth Finkelstein: re john, re every, and q to Moreschi
Line 124: Line 124:
::::I didn't claim that our articles were attack pages, but rather that the arguments for deletion presented in this deletion review seem to ''treat'' the articles as attack pages. If Wikipedia articles are really a good idea, it follows that they aren't, inherently, disrespectful towards their subjects. [[User:John254|John254]] 01:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I didn't claim that our articles were attack pages, but rather that the arguments for deletion presented in this deletion review seem to ''treat'' the articles as attack pages. If Wikipedia articles are really a good idea, it follows that they aren't, inherently, disrespectful towards their subjects. [[User:John254|John254]] 01:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Come to think of it, though, this article was [[Special:Undelete/Seth Finkelstein|recreated]] as a ''genuine'' attack page after it was deleted, an ''actual'' [[WP:BLP]] violation that was possible only because of the deletion. So, in consideration of the fact that "these are in fact '''real people'''", we should undelete and protect the article to prevent actual harm to Seth Finkelstein's reputation. [[User:John254|John254]] 01:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Come to think of it, though, this article was [[Special:Undelete/Seth Finkelstein|recreated]] as a ''genuine'' attack page after it was deleted, an ''actual'' [[WP:BLP]] violation that was possible only because of the deletion. So, in consideration of the fact that "these are in fact '''real people'''", we should undelete and protect the article to prevent actual harm to Seth Finkelstein's reputation. [[User:John254|John254]] 01:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Actually, [[WP:SALT|salting]] would achieve this without restoration. [[User:Mercury|<b style="color:#8b7b8b;font-family:Verdana">M<font color="#000">ercury</font></b>]] 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''', full protect and give Seth the opportunity to discuss and reach agreement on any changes on the talk page before they are made (by an admin, obviously). [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] ([[User talk:Everyking|talk]]) 01:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''', full protect and give Seth the opportunity to discuss and reach agreement on any changes on the talk page before they are made (by an admin, obviously). [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] ([[User talk:Everyking|talk]]) 01:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:This seems unworkable, as seth would not be the sole contributer, but the editing community at large. Admins have no special status here, unless it you are suggesting full protection, than an admin would have to edit over that. [[User:Mercury|<b style="color:#8b7b8b;font-family:Verdana">M<font color="#000">ercury</font></b>]] 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' per trialsanderrors. Regular Guardian columnist surely has to be pretty notable, much as I loathe that awful rag. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User:Moreschi/If|If you've written a quality article...]]</sup> 01:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' per trialsanderrors. Regular Guardian columnist surely has to be pretty notable, much as I loathe that awful rag. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User:Moreschi/If|If you've written a quality article...]]</sup> 01:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:Forgive me, rag? [[User:Mercury|<b style="color:#8b7b8b;font-family:Verdana">M<font color="#000">ercury</font></b>]] 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:56, 1 January 2008

< December 29 Deletion review archives: 2007 December December 31 >

30 December 2007

Francis Goya (closed)

Manhasset Lacrosse

Manhasset Lacrosse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There was no apparent reason for deletion and no one notified me on my talk page Jdchamp31 (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have notified the deleting admin for comment. Although not notifying you of the deletion was bad form, I would suggest that other editors wait to hear the deleting admin's rationale for deletion before commening in this discussion. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Since when do we have to wait for the deleting admin's reasoning before we can discuss the merit of the deletion? Overturn, list at AfD Clear assertion of notability beyond normal high school team level, although the veracity certainly needs to be discussed. At worst, this should have been prodded. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was deleted months ago. There is no requirement to notify anyone before deleting anything under CSD although I agree that its good manners to. Oh and Overturn and List per Trialsanderrors. Spartaz Humbug! 21:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and merge - no need for any Wikidrama; just merge the content into the main article leaving a protected redirect, if thought necessary. TerriersFan (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Faceless

The Faceless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article for The Faceless should be undeleted according to Wikipedia:Notability(Music) guidelines "criteria for musicians and ensembles" #4, "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources."Wikipedia:Notability (music). The Faceless toured nationally on the Summer Slaughter Tour(The Summer Slaughter Tour) and are still the only member of that tour to not have a Wikipedia page. Deletion of page appears to be based on personal bias and not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Murmaider717 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul Revolution (closed)

Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd)

This article was nominated for deletion at the request of Seth Finkelstein (talk · contribs), and deleted in consideration of the allegedly marginal notability of the subject and his request for deletion. However, Seth Finkelstein (talk · contribs) requested that the article be deleted for the sole purpose of preventing malicious editing that might harm his reputation [1], a concern that was reflected in the statement by the administrator who closed the second AFD discussion. These concerns would be adequately addressed by retaining the article, but leaving it fully protected indefinitely -- the probability of would-be malicious editors being able to compromise an administrative account and insert defamatory information into a fully protected article is extraordinarily small. Though full protection greatly inconveniences normal editing, I claim that it is preferable to destroying the article completely. Moreover, leaving the article intact, but protected, would prevent it from being recreated in a defamatory form, which appears to have occurred once after it was deleted -- the deletion of this article seems to have facilitated the very WP:BLP violations that it was designed to prevent. The article could be protected from recreation at its current name, of course; however, with the article deleted, a WP:BLP violating version at a slight variation of the name could masquerade as the primary article. Ironically, though the article was deleted per WP:BLP, undeletion and protection would afford the best possible prevention of WP:BLP violations. Moreover, if the principle that consensus can change justifies the deletion of an article after multiple AFD discussions, it likewise justifies a substantive reconsideration of the merits of deletions that have already occured. John254 04:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and restore There is no rule permitting the deletion of an article because it might be a troll magnet, and thus the closing was in stark opposition to policy. (Nor should there be, if we are to have coverage of controversial subjects.) I note that the subject of this article and a prominent figure in the WMF have posted attacks on each other in a number of very prominent places. This gives an appearance of COI to the removal of the article. An objective POV (we call it NPOV) requires we write and judge judge each article without using our personal feelings about the subject. We have a method of achieving accuracy: we can correct what appears in articles, and block trolls if necessary & protect content. It is time we repudiated the practice that the subjects preferences can be taken into account about whether to have an article. It gives that persons censorship over what is written about him. It comes in conflict with our basic principle of NPOV, and cannot stand. When policies conflict, we must support the one at the basis of the encyclopedia. And what's the point--at the moment the third highest item in Google for SF is a mean-spirited attack on him. Better that we have a proper article. DGG (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). I concur with the closer's assessment that this person is on the fringe of our generally accepted inclusion criteria. The AFD discussions make that clear. The closer is also correct that in cases on the edge, WP:BLP requires us to consider the subject's wishes. Whether you agree with the subject's stated rationale is irrelevant (and it was the subject who raised the vandalism argument, not the closer). The subject wants the page deleted.
    As a side note, however, I will disagree with the two opinions raised above. While we never delete a page solely because of vandalism concerns, there are some pages that get deleted because they just aren't worth the trouble to maintain. Vandalism patrol consumes valuable resources. We spend the effort needed to watchlist and patrol clearly encyclopedic articles like GW Bush but for pages of only marginal value to our readers, we are certainly allowed to consider other factors when deciding to keep or delete a page. Rossami (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the administrator who closed the AFD discussion expressly stated that

The "notability debate" ended with "no consensus".[2]

and that he was deleting the article for the sole purpose of preventing malicious editing:

Mr. Finkelstein's concerns are very valid; a Wikipedia article is a prime target for trolls who want to anonymously defame the subject. Now that Wikipedia has become one of the highest-visited sites on the Internet, we have to take into account that things said on Wikipedia articles can and will affect the subject's life. We've seen this happen before; only recently, a professor was detained in an airport because his Wikipedia biography falsely stated that he had ties to a terrorist group.[3]

If the purpose of the deletion was to prevent WP:BLP violations, however, it failed spectacularly: the article was re-deleted on 02:32, 24 July 2007 because it had been recreated as an "attack page". So, the deletion actually encouraged a WP:BLP violation: with the article deleted, many editors likely removed it from their watchlists, and the "attack page" remained in place until it was re-deleted. Deletion of an article to prevent defamatory editing is not only needlessly destructive, it is also completely ineffective, since malicious editors can simply recreate the article in a defamatory form. If this article is at such great risk of malicious editing, and our RC patrol resources are so scarce, that we simply cannot afford to permit open editing, then it should be subject to permanent full protection. Editors may use the editprotected template to request that an administrator edit the article. While this is an inconvenient, un-wiki, state in which to maintain the article, it is far preferable to completely deleting the article (which wouldn't prevent malicious recreation anyway.) John254 15:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you contacted Mr. Finkelstein to see if he's amenable to this idea of recreation as a protected article in order to prevent malicious recreation? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus, defaulting to keep. There was no consensus to delete in the arguement (but also none to keep). I don't believe that the subject's reason for wishing to not have a Wikipedia article holds any merit, since almost every single Wikipedia article can be vandalized (as stated in the AfD). As John254 stated, the deletion hasn't prevented the addition of malicious content. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; there is no clear consensus in the discussion, and the subject of the article does not get a veto to delete a properly sourced article (which was not seriously disputed in this case). — Coren (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn First, I have grave doubts that there is in fact community consensus to give closing admins this kind of discretion. Second, the article is generally positive in tone and focuses on accomplishments. If there are serious vandalism concerns, protecting the article is a sufficient remedy. Third, the subject is a frequent columnist in The Guardian, so I see neither notability concerns nor legitimate privacy concerns that would warrant deletion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn I was intending to DRV this article in a few months when I had additional sources which Seth produces regularly. I am unfortunately on vacation currently so I don't have the full list of additional sources that have either been written by Seth or which mentioned him, but the total was IIRC around 20 since this was deleted. Seth also won a pioneer award from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which makes him notable by itself. There is thus no real claim that his notability is borderline or marginal. Furthermore, as I have previously discussed it is unreasonable in the extreme to allow BLP-courtsey deletions for willing public figures, since they have entered the public arena willingly and there is a definite public need to have information about them (indeed, this is the essential idea behind the legal notion of a public figure used in many jurisdictions). In fact, Seth did not object to an article about him on any grounds of privacy or such but as noted above purely over concern over vandalism. Thus, this does not even really fall into what would motivate consideration for a privacy deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I see no reason to delete this page. The last version of his article was sourced and contained no breach of WP:BLP. Vandalism, potential or otherwise, is no reason for deletion; as admins we have the tools to deal with that. TerriersFan (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion we've no consensus as to whether this is notable or not. Since there's no consensus that we should have it, the subject's wishes can be taken into account. Closer said it all. Really, we've lived without this for six months and the wiki hasn't fallen apart. Leave the guy alone.--Docg 21:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, person of marginal notability at best (definitely not a shoo-in), who has expressed a clear preference against having an article. Not having it is not really a big omission for the project, and I'm all for letting people have at least some say in whether we cover them or not in cases where notability is limited or questionable, which it clearly is in this case. There's no need to have information on Finkelstein whether because he likes to have a go at us form time to time or for any other reason, it's not like he's in the running for the Pulitzer or anything, just a jobbing freelance journalist; I'm going to hazard a guess that there are more Finkelsteins without an article than with. It's six months since it was deleted, I'd leave it at least another six and see what sources are in play then which are biographical, primarily about Finkelstein the man, and provably independent. Wikipedia is not evil and should not do things just to thumb our noses at people. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Wikipedia is not evil and should not do things just to thumb our noses at people." So, let's undelete and protect the article to prevent someone from recreating it as an attack page again. John254 01:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we should undelete and protect the article to avoid its recreation as a real attack page page that could cause real harm to Seth Finkelstein's reputation. John254 01:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What am I missing here? Seems open and shut to me... AfD and AfD2 give marginal notability? BLP tells us we should then honor the subject's wishes. It doesn't say "unless the wish for deletion is for reasons X, Y or Z," or "unless we think the subject is a poopyhead". Subject wishes article deleted? Delete. Matters not why the subject wishes it, only that it IS the wish. Endorse deletion ++Lar: t/c 23:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-adding my comment from the now-reopened DRV: Endorse deletion as well-stated by Lar and others. Making a new class of perpetually-protected articles is an interesting idea. However, it should be discussed as a community-wide policy before experimenting with this marginally-notable BLP. Cool Hand Luke 23:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, marginally notable biography and according to policy deleted correctly. The real question here is, "Is the encyclopedia really missing anything without this article? I really don't think so. Phydend (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability in question/marginal + subject wants deletion = Delete. Let us try and be respectful to the subjects of these BLP's. This is why we have these policys in place. Endorse. Mercury 00:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence has been presented in this deletion review that Seth Finkelstein is notable -- see the comments by trialsanderrors and JoshuaZ above. Moreover, the claim that having an article about a notable person who is intentionally a public figure is somehow disrespectful "to the subjects of these BLP's" is itself disrespectful to Wikipedia, as though our articles were inherently evil attack pages designed to destroy reputations. If we don't believe Wikipedia articles are a good idea, why are we here? John254 01:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woah John, slow down please. Your inference is absolutely incorrect that our articles are inherently evil. A claim that I made regarding respecting the subjects of BLP, does not relate to how I feel about the articles or this project. Let us assume good faith to our article writers, please. And I have no clue how to relate your last sentence to this debate, it is off topic. As for the first part re notability, many people myself included, would disagree, and endorse a finding or marginal. Thanks, Mercury 01:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim that our articles were attack pages, but rather that the arguments for deletion presented in this deletion review seem to treat the articles as attack pages. If Wikipedia articles are really a good idea, it follows that they aren't, inherently, disrespectful towards their subjects. John254 01:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, though, this article was recreated as a genuine attack page after it was deleted, an actual WP:BLP violation that was possible only because of the deletion. So, in consideration of the fact that "these are in fact real people", we should undelete and protect the article to prevent actual harm to Seth Finkelstein's reputation. John254 01:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, salting would achieve this without restoration. Mercury 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems unworkable, as seth would not be the sole contributer, but the editing community at large. Admins have no special status here, unless it you are suggesting full protection, than an admin would have to edit over that. Mercury 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, rag? Mercury 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_30&oldid=181307178"