Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 30

30 December 2007

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Okay so what is the status on this overturn? Please post on my talk page. Jdchamp31 (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Excuse me, why is this tagged for deletion again? Take a look at the page of As Blood Runs Black for instance. They are both well known bands, have done international tours and released one album. What is the problem? --Rikva (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Right, I see it's deleted now. I can understand one doesn't like Tech Death Metal, but would someone be so kind to tell me the valid reason why this article can't exist? --Rikva (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Nice, talk page of the article is now also removed. If I don't get any normal response I'll just re-create the article as I did today. --Rikva (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • As you can see from the link above, the page was deleted because of this AFD decision. Recreating the article (without prior consensus to overturn the AFD decision) is grounds for speedy-deletion. I strongly advise you against recreating the article. If you do so repeatedly, it will likely get you blocked as a vandal. If you think the AFD decision was in error, present your evidence here. Rossami (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
      • The AfD decision was clearly made in error as they have toured nationally on multiple occasions. The music notability guidelines do not specify whether the band has to be headlining or supporting, they just have to tour nationally. Murmaider717 (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• According to this, they were merely a supporting act for the tour. Being a supporting act on a single tour does not meet my understanding of the relevant criteria of WP:BAND. Endorse closure (keep deleted) unless there is better evidence that this group meets the recommended inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the explanation. Too bad, they are currently touring and have been touring in many different states (source), but I guess that doesn't qualify as "international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country". --Rikva (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. It looks like Rikva has new evidence that would support the keeping of this article. People have a lot of very strong opinions on this topic, and I think a little chillin' would go a long way to help a second AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What new evidence? --Smashville^BONK! 18:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Didn't see the sources he/she's provided in the AfD, therefore relist. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
      • There are no citations anywhere in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Faceless. The re-created article cited no sources, either. Uncle G (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I said that badly. "The source he/she cited above wasn't provided in the AfD" was what I meant. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Ah! Thank you for clarifying. Uncle G (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Wikipedia is not a reliable source and no independent reliable sources provided. They do not have the album releases to meet WP:Music. They are a support touring band; fine but that does not provide notability. TerriersFan (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Restore - According to the evidence provided by not only myself but Rikva as well it appears that this article should be restored by an administrator as it does fit under the music notability guidelines. Murmaider717 (talk) 01:00, 01 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Your opinion is clear from your nomination above. Feel free to reply to comments or to add evidence as the discussion continues but please do not use the format of expressing a bolded opinion at the front of a line. It gives the impression that you are trying to have your opinion counted twice and creates potential confusion for the admin who eventually has to close this discussion. Rossami (talk)
    • My bad, I'm a WikiN00b. I just think there is enough evidence to restore immediately and I don't see what other evidence could be provided. Murmaider717
• Endorse Closure. "Evidence" provided is neither significant nor new (it was fully available and easily found during the AfD process...there already was a source linked from the same site)...and WP:MUSIC even considers the touring portion a disputed criteria. --Smashville^BONK! 04:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ummm, I understand that WP:Music are just rough guidelines but how exactly is the touring portion a disputed section???
    • Because the page says it's disputed. --Smashville^BONK! 06:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
      • You're right, the way it is set up does make it disputable although I don't see exactly where it points out the touring portion as being specifically disputable. What's particularly interesting about this is that there are other bands of equal or lesser prominence on Wikipedia yet there are people feeling the need to dictate whether it should be allowed on the site. Also, the band already has new material on their Myspace and according to "http://www.sumerianrecords.com/news.php?page=2&limit=10&sort=date+DESC&band=&month=&year=" on 10/8 paragraph 4 they were in the studio almost 2 months ago working on their new CD. When their new cd does get released probably sometime in 2008 they would then meet 2 of the notability criteria. Do we really have to wait until then for them to be allowed on the site?? Or would it still be "disputed"??

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)

I don't want to play games with it. No article means no Wikibureaucracy mischief and no wikilawyering argument over the content and what counts as fair criticism. Look at it this way - you're not exactly making your case with my having to deal with this now (i.e. this sort of stuff is indicative of why I think the downside is so large) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That argument proves too much, because it would justify the deletion of any biography of a living person. Do major public figures, whose articles will not be deleted upon request, deserve "Wikibureaucracy mischief and... wikilawyering argument over the content and what counts as fair criticism"? If we don't believe Wikipedia articles are a good idea, and can be fair to their subjects, why are we here? John254 17:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For living people, I believe the bar should be set to the point where such mischief and arguing would have no practical effect on the person's reputation. George Bush won't be affected like I will. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And while I'd rather not go into details on-wiki, let's just say that the probability of would-be malicious editors who HAVE an administrative account and would insert defamatory information into a fully protected article, is nontrivial. Not all people with the admin bit are paragons of cool-headedness. Especially when it comes to the treatment of someone who is often critical of Wikipedia. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we have any administrators who want to sacrifice their sysop bits just to "insert defamatory information into a fully protected article". John254 17:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

I can only hope fair-minded people dismiss that item as the obvious ravings of a troll (though I know sadly some people will be fooled, and that bothers me). The point is that with a Wikipedia article, trolls get "reputation-washed" via the use of Wikipedia as a platform. It's then not one frothing-at-the-mouth guy with an evident grudge, but "Wikipedia says" (even if it's a frothing-at-the-mouth guy with a grudge making the edit), Plus there's just too much temptation for someone who wants to retaliate against me for my criticisms of Wikipedia, to try to work attack material into my biography on the basis of "balance". That's my reasoning. Further, the timing of the deletion of the article versus the hiring of the prominent figure in the WMF should indicate there was no COI. HOWEVER, given said figure's current WMF prominence, I cannot emphasize how strongly an article would NOW be a COI. There is absolute no way any sort of fairness can be assured, and that statement is not subject to debate. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

You neglect that a dead article is an article that can't be gamed. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

No, no, a thousand times NO. That idea is amazingly Orwellian. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

FAQ - "You've achieved a few things over the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Finkelstein's contributions to the Grauniad are here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sethfinkelstein ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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.--Doc^g 21:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

If what we want to do is prevent the article from being recreated, we do not need to undelete. See WP:SALT, Wikipedia:Protected titles and m:Help:Administration#Protection. We can protect the deleted article, using cascading protection, or, now that there has been a mediawiki enhancement, we can even just protect the deleted article outright without needing to use cascade. There is absolutely no need to actually create anything. I'm putting this reply to you here on ONE of your replies that make this same point about needing to protect a created article to prevent recreation (which is not correct), although you are making the same point in many places... that latter tactic may not be the best approach as it may make it seem like you are arguing somewhat stridently. ++Lar: t/c 06:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. At the risk of repeating my statement above, "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." John254 06:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a little saddened by this. Let us keep in mind, these are in fact real people. Mercury 21:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Actually, salting would achieve this without restoration. Mercury 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. At the risk of repeating my statement above, "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." John254 02:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is why, of course, deletion of articles to prevent WP:BLP violations is incredibly ineffective. We should not have an article on a given subject only when we don't have sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources with which to write an acceptable article, or if for some other reason an article cannot be rendered in an acceptable state. John254 02:11, 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). 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. Mercury 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. I did say full protection. This is what I think is generally appropriate in these kinds of cases: vandalism becomes impossible and POV pushing becomes very difficult, but we retain an article on the subject which can still be developed, albeit more slowly. Admins do have special status: in this case, they are allowed to edit protected pages. Under the scenario I presented, they would do so in order to implement content changes agreed upon by other parties on talk. Everyking (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I did not see where you had suggested full protection. However, it is a good close per notability, and deletion is endorsed by me. Regards, Mercury 17:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone, including Seth, has an argument that this solution would be inadequate to address his concerns, I would like to see it. No one could touch the article except admins, but admins themselves would be barred from editing the article on their own initiative, so I see no basis for concern that admins would work to slant the article against Seth (and I must say that even our worst admins are seldom POV pushers anyway). Any edits would have to be proposed on talk and agreed upon by both participating members of the community and Seth (allowing a generous period time for him to participate—he would not need to monitor the talk page frequently, and he could nominate someone to participate in any such discussions as his advocate) prior to implementation. I can see no basis for objecting to this solution, as it would make disruptive or disputed editing impossible, unless the basis lies in some kind of broader objection to having information of any kind on Wikipedia about oneself. Everyking (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyking, unfortunately, in order to give you that basis, I'd have to detail some real nastiness, and I don't think that is advisable here. Suffice it to say that while I grasp the theoretical argument people make, I have a lot of practical reasons for rebutting that they severely underestimate just how much harm can be done by some ill-intentioned people. I have a saying about this - "Don't ever think "They can't get away with it". They can". To give a relatively mild, hypothetical, scenario, I can easily see someone who wants to retaliate against me for my criticisms of Wikipedia trying to work attack material into my biography on the basis of "balance". Then we're off to a long "discussion" about whether that's fair or not. In which discussion I'm accused of censorship, trying to WP:OWN the article, told "this is Wikipedia's article, not Seth Finkelstein's. ... the articles remain under the control and jurisdiction of the Wikipedia community", on and on. I don't want to have to test my skills in wikipolitics against people who can definitely outlast me in a war of attrition. It's human nature that someone is going to think that they can gain community status by doing a hatchet-job on a critic. Again, note that's not my deepest objection, only one which I think works well for discussion here. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn per trialsanderrors. Regular Guardian columnist surely has to be pretty notable, much as I loathe that awful rag. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 01:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, rag? Mercury 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A disparaging term for a newspaper. CWC 04:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion per Guy and user:Lar. Mr Finkelstein is a classic example of a person who is only just notable by Wikipedia standards. I strongly support the BLP deletion standards policy of taking the subject's wishes into account, so I see leaving this article deleted as an exemplary precedent. CWC 04:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly an "exemplary precedent" to delete the article due to the Seth Finkelstein's concerns about malicious editing, thereby enabling the user who recreated the article as an attack page to engage in the very sort of editing that Seth Finkelstein wanted the article deleted to prevent. We would do the subject of this article no favors if we were to blame him for the recreation of the article as an attack page after it was deleted at his request, which appears to be what leaving the article deleted would amount to. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy -- we should not apply the biographies of living persons policy in a manner that is manifestly contrary to its intent. Undeletion and protection of this article is necessary to prevent WP:BLP violations of the worst sort. John254 04:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In a way, this deletion review centers around what is more important: real people's reputations, or Wikipedia bureaucracy. If real people are to be more highly valued, we should undelete and protect the article, while, if the bureaucracy is more important, the article should be left deleted. I fully concede that the deletion of this article was conformity with the letter of the BLP deletion standards, but to apply the biographies of living persons policy in a manner that causes real harm to the reputations of the very people that the policy was written to protect is wikilawyering at its absolute worst, something that I, and many other respected editors who have participated in this discussion find to be completely unacceptable. John254 05:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, since two editors participating in this deletion review have claimed that protecting the page against recreation in its deleted state would adequately prevent malicious recreation, [4] [5], let me observe that I explained in my initial statement that protection against recreation is only effective against a specific page title. With the legitimate article deleted, a malicious recreation at a slightly different page title might appear to be the actual article. John254 07:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments, John254. I agree that real people's reputations are more important than bureaucracy, but I disagree with you about which one we would be putting first if we restored this article. To me, whether the subject of a BLP article wants it deleted is important but why the subject feels that way is less important, so I care little about possible means of protecting the subject while deleting the article. (Perhaps having seen continuing nastiness at BLP articles such as Michelle Malkin and Oliver Kamm has made me more cynical about Internet hate-mongers.)

More importantly, John254 is quite right about hate-mongers creating articles with minor title variations (or even WP:COATRACKs). Of course, this applies to every controversial living person, not just Seth Finkelstein. If our existing processes for finding and deleting such attack articles are no longer adequate, we will just have to divert more valuable editor time to improve those processes. CWC 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn Full protection is better than deletion. In this case, if the article is fully protected, then I don't think Wikipedia:BLP#BLP deletion standards should apply. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami and WP:BLP, which does state that it's up to the closing admin to decide whether the subject's wishes should be taken into account. This close was well within the closing admin's discretion. --Coredesat 09:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion My god folks, it's New Year's Eve, I don't feel at my best, and dealing with this was not high on my list of intended ways to spend time. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Original deletion was compliant with policy: no consensus + marginal notability + BLP subject's wishes = article may be deleted at closer's discretion. This nomination offers no new argument; it just claims policy ought to be different. So go change policy, if you can summon a consensus for it, and leave Mr. Finkelstein in peace until then. He's an actual human being and this is a holiday. The nomination is in extremely poor taste. Recommend withdrawing it and extending a personal apology to Mr. Finkelstein. Durova^Charge! 11:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Sean William's deletion of this article, for the stated purpose of preventing malicious editing, thereby enabling it to be recreated as an attack page, at the same location from which the original article was deleted, was "in extremely poor taste". Exactly how long was the attack page in place before it was deleted? I would suggest that Sean William needs to "[extend] a personal apology to Mr. Finkelstein." Furthermore, I do not "[claim that] policy ought to be different", but rather that the necessarily broad and general language of the policy cannot adequately account for every particular circumstance to which it can be applied, a fact recognized in our own policy WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. In this case, the letter of the biographies of living persons policy should not have been applied in a manner so contrary to its intent as to have enabled the creation of an attack page, which represented a very real harm to an actual human being. John254 17:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, as the person about whom you are allegedly so concerned, I am telling you: I find your actions, under the very best and most charitable interpretation of WP:AGF, misguided and counter-productive. At worse, well, I want to stay within WP:CIVIL. Note your supposed concern for my welfare did not extend to consulting with me beforehand, and I'm not exactly hard to find on the Net. If you are truly well-intentioned and not making Orwellian arguments in order to rationalize what you want to do, then I suggest you take into account the extremely strong rejection of your idea by the one who it's supposed to help! -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia's article, not yours. It is the Wikipedia community that is responsible for maintaining it, for preventing it from being used for defamatory purposes, for ensuring that it is balanced. If Wikipedia is used to cause harm to living people, Wikipedia's reputation suffers. Over our reputation you have no greater interest than any other editor. John254 18:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Finkelstein is an intelligent man and has weighed these considerations, reached his conclusion, and voiced it with utmost clarity. You and I will walk away from this discussion with little consequence to ourselves, but he does not share our luxury. Courtesy does not consist of foisting an unwelcome solution onto an articulate adult who wants the opposite, particularly so when the timing interferes with a major holiday. I really suggest you step back and see how this looks. Durova^Charge! 17:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The argument that "courtesy does not consist of foisting an unwelcome solution onto an articulate adult who wants the opposite" would be true if this were Seth Finkelstein's article -- he could do what he wished with it, and would accept responsibility for his choices. However, this is Wikipedia's article, not Seth Finkelstein's. While we have a duty, of course, to prevent harm coming to subjects of our biographies through defamatory or unbalanced editing, or, in some cases, through articles concerning clearly non-public figures, the articles remain under the control and jurisdiction of the Wikipedia community. We should not destroy our encyclopedic content, and enable our encyclopedia to more easily be used for defamation, for the sole reason that the subject of the article has requested such an action. John254 17:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you're avoiding the fact that Wikipedia is actively used for defamation in the form of vandalism. In addition, if somebody really wants to find out about Mr. Finkelstein, then they can look around Google for news articles. They don't need us. As Tony Sidaway said at one point, "Do no harm. All the rest is wikilawyering." [6] Sean William @ 17:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Then your deletion fails on its own terms, since the article was recreated as an attack page after you deleted it to prevent defamatory editing. You didn't even bother to protect the article against recreation at its current page title. "Do no harm", indeed. John254 18:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am specifically not "avoiding the fact that Wikipedia is actively used for defamation in the form of vandalism" -- that's why I suggested restoring the article in a fully protected state. John254 18:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And your suggestion has been rejected by the person who it is supposed to benefit. Even without getting into some of the harsher realms, there's too many people running around Wikipedia, even admins, who are, in a memorable phrase "a few monkeys short of a Shakespeare". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

John, the solution that has been in place for six months was implemented in accordance with policy. Your proposed revision is not encompassed within that policy. You ought to have sought consensus within the community instead trying this experimentally. That's the reverse of normal procedure, and if we're going to play fast and loose with normal process the worst place to do that is BLP and the worst time is between Christmas and New Year's. I'm trying to assume good faith here and suppose you just weren't thinking clearly, that you didn't deliberately intend to ruin this man's holiday. But really, I'm astonished to see you persist in the misconception that you're doing Mr. Finkelstein any kind of favor. He's here, he's insisting he hates it. This is bad all around. Please withdraw graciously. Durova^Charge! 18:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Per Durova. Absolutely. - Alison ^❤ 12:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Question for admins - what level/sort of vandalism is there in the page history? --h2g2bob (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Article was created in 2004 and there does not seem much of a problem with vandalism at first. However in second half of 2006 it had to be protected twice (once by Jimbo) because of vandalism - normal type of vandalism (page blanking, nonsense etc.). Davewild (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Something being discussed here, however, is the restoration of the article as a fully protected page, which would essentially prevent vandalism and other types of malicious editing. I don't accept Seth Finkelstein's assertion that "the probability of would-be malicious editors who HAVE an administrative account and would insert defamatory information into a fully protected article, is nontrivial" [7] -- any administrator who did such a thing would quickly be desysopped. John254 17:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"A dead article plays no games" (said for a third time) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion naturally, as the closing admin. Durova sums up my thoughts well. Sean William @ 17:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• comment - I find John254's strident repetition of the same assertions to be very much less than helpful. He asserts that the only way to protect against vandalism or malicious recreation is by having the article exist. That is patently false, as multiple other editors have pointed out. His counter to WP:SALT is to say that articles with slightly different title spellings can be created. But this is exactly as true in his preferred approach as it is if the article were SALTed. In either case, these other titled articles are subject to summary deletion so I'm not seeing the big issue there. I reiterate, we have a biography of a person who is marginally notable, and who has expressed a preference. He even came here to express it. In accordance with our BLP policy, we honor the wishes of those expressing preference when there is no clear mandate one way or the other from notability. John254 has expressed his views multiple times now, and I suspect that there is no reader of this that is unacquainted with them at this point. I further suggest that if John254 continues to repeat the same arguments over and over, the perception that some have of him as "unhelpful" will shade over to a perception of "disruptive", and that unless there is some new argument introduced for him to counter, he should stop repeating himself, and let this DRV proceed to a conclusion. Myself, the conclusion seems blindingly clear from consensus, logic and policy. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The claim that "to say that articles with slightly different title spellings can be created... is exactly as true in his preferred approach as it is if the article were SALTed" is incorrect. If we undeleted and fully protected the legitimate article, a malicious recreation at a variant title would be quickly found as a duplicate, and deleted. In any event, the legitimate article should appear at the top of search results, since it would be at the correct title. However, with the legitimate article deleted and protected against recreation, a defamatory recreation at slightly different title would not necessarily be identified as a duplicate article, since the legitimate article would appear as a red-link. It shouldn't be assumed that we would delete a defamatory article quickly in any case -- see the Seigenthaler controversy. Furthermore, per evidence presented by Hiding below, Seth Finkelstein clearly is notable, and the article shouldn't be deleted per BLP deletion standards in any event. As for accusing me of being "unhelpful" or "disruptive", if trying to preserve encyclopedic content and to prevent Wikipedia from being used as forum for defamation is "disruptive", then I plead guilty. I am therefore banning myself from subsequent participation in this discussion. John254 05:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. If the main point of contention here is whether Seth Finkelstein is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia or not, then it is germane to the discussion that Seth is a Guardian columnist, his columns for the paper are cited, he is described by New Statesman as an Electronic Frontier Foundation Pioneer Award-winner after they have used opinion from him within an article, ("I predict a riot . . . and other things" Oct 16, 2006) and his opinion is also used in "Battle stations", (New Scientist Jun 25-Jul 1, 2005) where he is described as an independent researcher into spam. Finklestein is widely cited in papers and the like, is given special acknowledgement for his influence in Numerical recipes in Fortran 77: the art of scientific computing, is declared a "a leading programmer opponent of 'censorware'" at Public Libraries Face Net Filtering Following Supreme Court Decision, was an expert witness in Nitke v Ashcroft [8], and has been published in Handbook of Information Security. Now for me there's enough to meet WP:WEB, in that his opinion pieces online have been independently repackaged within the mainstream media, and I'm inclined to say there's enough to meet WP:BIO. I'd say that the person has received significant recognized awards or honors, has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field, is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors and is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. If there are other concerns other than the subject's notability, I will bow to whatever consensus forms. For the record, I enjoy Seth's pieces in The Guardian and tend to agree with his opinions on Wikipedia. Hiding T 20:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Wikipedia without a Seth Finkelstein article!!! Well heaven forfend! Meh... get over it and move on. RMHED (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• overturn, appears to meet the needs for notability and the living person issue. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 21:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. The subject does not want this article so it is pointless to claim that it would be in the subjects best interest to recreate this article. If necessary salt instead. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)