Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Marsden (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:24, 7 March 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Marsden2

The "Speedy Keep" decision was a blatant attempt to prevent discussion. This article is libelous and leaves Wikipedia open to a lawsuit. It is am attempt to smear the subject. It is filled with POV, slected facts. Please read "talk" page before voting to see the objections raised. Several Canadian Wikipedia editors refuse to do anything to restrain the stalking of the subject of this article by the authors Isotelus 12:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

My name is Rachel Marsden--the person this article is about. It is so incredibly wrong, biased and libelous that I have attempted to contact Wikipedia founder Jim Wales personally, by phone, to no avail. I don't threaten people with legal action, but would suggest that an article like this does Wikipedia a real disservice and has certainly destroyed its credibility in my view, as a working journalist. Even the slightest attempt at fairness--if not accuracy--would have been appreciated. Regards, Rachel Marsden, 7 March 2006

*Delete

Delete192.197.82.153 15:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This second nomination comes just 3 days after the first and is part of ongoing content dispute, not a valid AfD nomination. Wiederaufbau 15:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. A second nomination in 3 days? I thought we just speedy keeped this... Pasboudin 15:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. If libelous information exists, please remove said content (obviously), but the subject is notable and should be included on Wikipedia. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:06, 7 March

2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. Like Green Arrow's sidekick in a castle. A quick Googling suggests that much of this lady's notability derives from past controversies anyway, so where's the beef. Article might discuss more re the evolution of her beliefs and her writing rather than just being restricted to scandals (and has a few minor typos), but that's for the talk page, not here. At any rate, as it stands is amongst the best referenced Wikiarticles I have yet seen- if it's libellous, then so are a lot of other publications. Seems like a bit of an unwarranted nom given that it was SK'ed only a few days ago. Obviously, no delete. Badgerpatrol 16:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...if it's libellous, then so are a lot of other publications." A staggering statement. Truly. Isotelus 16:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pasboudin, Wiederaufbau, Homeontherange and Bucketsofg will not entratin any changes to this article to reduce innuendo and POV, and have gone out of their way to stifle discussion on the talk page and in the earlier deletion attempt. This artice was immediately re-nominated because because there was no chance to discuss this because the editors/perpetrators of this vicious article used the "speedy keep" process to subvert real debate. Both "speedy keep" votes have been made by people who insist on keeping this article as POV as possible and who have not taken the reservations of others on Wikpiedia into account. They have been censured by Jimbo Wales (see the long discussion page), yet they continue to torque this article and have created a second article on the Donnelly/Marsden dispite that contains large pieces of this article that have been cut and pasted into the new one. This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. It is mysoginistic, extremely biased, and is beoming worse all the time. I have reverted it several times to an earlier version that contains all of the facts without the POV, only to have it reverted back to this version, with warnings.Isotelus 16:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is not the proper venue to discuss content disputes. Outside parties may be interested in my filing at WP:RFCU#Isotelus (talk • contribs) and Mark Bourrie (talk • contribs) as well. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If you have a content dispute, deleting the entire article is hardly the way to go about it. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Pasboudin 16:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bourrie no longer posts on Wikipedia. He has not posted on this page. Get your facts straight, for once. I might be Mark Bourrie, I might not, but I can see why he would want to be anonymous when all of you demand anonymity.Isotelus 16:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 *'''Delete'''
-My name is Rachel Marsden--the person this article is about.  It is so incredibly wrong, biased and libelous that I have attempted to contact Wikipedia founder Jim Wales personally, by phone, to no avail.  I don't threaten people with legal action, but would suggest that an article like this does Wikipedia a real disservice and has certainly destroyed its credibility in my view, as a working journalist.  Even the slightest attempt at fairness--if not accuracy--would have been appreciated.  *'''Delete'''
+My name is Rachel Marsden--the person this article is about.  It is so incredibly wrong, biased and libelous that I have attempted to contact Wikipedia founder Jim Wales personally, by phone, to no avail.  I don't threaten people with legal action, but would suggest that an article like this does Wikipedia a real disservice and has certainly destroyed its credibility in my view, as a working journalist.  Even the slightest attempt at fairness--if not accuracy--would have been appreciated.
 Regards,  Rachel Marsden, 7 March 2006
+ *'''Delete'''
 *'''Delete'''[[User:192.197.82.153|192.197.82.153]] 15:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)