Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Benson (cartoonist)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Benson (cartoonist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has a terrible history of being abused by members of the LDS church to attack the subject in retaliation for his criticisms of the church. Once all the POV nonsense is removed, we know remarkably little about him. Superficially the subject passes WP:BIO but there is a lack of reliable, independent sources cited, and quite a long history of polemical sources. The article either needs a Heyman-standard rewrite or, and this is the subject's preference expressed via OTRS, removal as more trouble than it's worth. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With due sympathy for the vandalism, Benson is a Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist, a former president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists [1], and the subject of substantial coverage throughout his career[2]. He is controversial, and these controversies have been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources, e.g. [3][4][5][6][7]. We have an article for every Pulitzer-winning cartoonist since 1971, and all but 3 of the winners since 1940. Deleting the article creates a gap in Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of editorial cartooning. There are better remedies for vandalism targets.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' What Arxiloxos said. If we need to clean up and patrol this article better, so be it, but that doesn't mean this gentleman is somehow non-notable. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Arxiloxos. THF (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am Steve Benson, editorial cartoonist for the Arizona Republic and recipient of the 1993 Pulitzer Prize. The wiki bio that is currently up on this website (a bio which I did not create or ask to have created) has historically been targeted by members of the Mormon Church who are upset with my decision to leave that religion. They have repeatedly and viciously altered the bio information, filling it with false, defamatory, invented, libelous and slanderous personal attacks. I have repeatedly asked wiki moderators to monitor and clean up the site but the abuse continues.

I am frustrated and disappointed that this ongoing vandalism has not been reined in and am feeling even more so now, due to the fact that I am now being advised by wiki moderators that I should hope for future edits to be put up by non-Mormon writers who will produce a more accurate biographical sketch. I do not think it is fair or appropriate for me to have to rely on others to clean up this constantly-poisoned and perjurious bio. Nor do I believe it is the proper approach to inform me (as I have been so notified by wiki) that whether or not this constantly-vandalized bio should be maintained must be determined by some kind of vote.

Again, I did not ask that the bio be put up in the first place . Its relentless targeting for barrages of malicious, unsourced, unverified and false accusations is intolerable.

I believe it is entirely reasonable, therefore, for me to respectfully request (as I have done more than once) that the bio be taken down entirely and permanently. Given that the bio has an ongoing history of being vandalized and abused, I do not trust that it will suddenly or in the long-term transform into a platform for accurate personal information about me, my family and my life.

Thank you.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic Phoenix, AZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobygiz (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning and organize that by decade so the link can be more direct like Pulitzer_Prize_for_Poetry#1990s. If everything that can be reliably sourced is limited to basically "Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning, 1993: Stephen R. Benson, Arizona Republic" then a single sentence there should be fine. I say delete before redirect so that any "malicious, unsourced, unverified and false accusations" are deleted from this page's history. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete and redirect's" proposal is an acceptable and reasonable compromise to me. --Steve Benson, Editorial cartoonist, The Arizona Republic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobygiz (talk • contribs) 23:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^spout 00:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think there is any question that this individual satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. I think that most Pulitzer Prize winners automatically pass the notability bar. The fact that the author himself is requesting the deletion of the article because of frequent vandalism is also a concern, however with all due respect to Steve, the fact that the subject of a BLP has requested the deletion of their article is not really anything that we can or should take into consideration when debating whether an article should be deleted. If you truly have concerns about the vandalism of this article, you may want to contact the Wikimedia Foundation and/or read Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). With that said, I have added the article to my watchlist and I will keep a lookout for vandalism in the future, and I encourage other regular editors to do the same. We have many tools available to us to fight vandals, including page protection (so that anonymous editors can't edit it), blocking vandal user accounts, blocking vandal IP ranges, and more. I fully understand why you would want to have this article deleted, but I feel that we have the tools available to us to ensure that this article stays here unvandalized, and grows into an accurate account of you and your work. After all, deleting the article would mean the Mormons have won, and no one wants that. I'll keep a lookout for you, and feel free to contact me on my talk page (User talk:Snottywong) if you have any concerns about the article in the future. Cheers. SnottyWong ^spout 00:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He already has contacted OTRS, which is why I have AfD'd the article. This much should be abundantly clear. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--I have yet to observe how this unauthorized bio can remain effectively unvandalized. I say that because up to this point, it certainly has not been. Rather, it has relentlessly and viciously been rewritten, added to and polluted with non-factual and libelous assertions/insertions. Unless this website has a reliable, long-term method for protecting the bio from slanderous onslaught, I remain decidedly uncomfortable with leaving it up. I am requesting some workable form of lock and block. If that cannot be done, delete permanently, please. Ask yourself, how would you feel if you were the target of such defamation? --Steve Benson, Editorial cartoonist, Arizona Republic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobygiz (talk • contribs) 00:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I understand why you feel the way you do and can't disagree with you. I'm not sure what you've tried in the past to stop the vandalism, but you may have just not talked to the right people. I have put in a request for semi-protection of the page, which would prevent anonymous users (i.e. users that are not logged in) as well as non-confirmed users (i.e. users that were recently created) from editing the page. If this protection is granted, it will make it much harder for vandals to modify the page. In the event that they figure out how to add more false information, I have the page on my watchlist so I will see the changes, revert them, and request that the vandal user account be blocked. SnottyWong ^babble 00:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for your concerns, interest, follow-up and pledged efforts.

In the past, I was contacted (after having made initial and direct complaint to this site about the bio's continuing vandalization), by a wiki moderator (the first of two), with whom I had several conversations about resolution. I was informed that measures would be taken to cleanly edit the bio back to reality and that special attention would subsequently be paid to keeping the bio from being tampered with--but with no absolute guarantee given that full protection would result.

I am presently working with a second moderator who expresses sympathy with my concerns over the libelous nature of the attacks on the bio; who agrees with my complaints and suggested remedies; who has urged patience; who advises me that they do not have the final say on this matter; and who, in the meantime, says they are trying to satisfactorily resolve the problem.

Through this period of attack and re-attack, I have made direct complaints, per protocol, to this site as I have become aware of the vandalism. But the problems have again flared up and I am concerned over whether they will, in fact, be stopped.

I would appreciate (and,frankly, expect) serious proactive measures to be taken by wiki to prevent this slanderous and defamatory abuse from continuing.

Thank you.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic

Ok, the semi-protection request has been granted. It will expire in March 2011, and if the vandalism starts back up again we can always request semi-protection for a longer period of time or indefinitely. Anonymous users and new users (less than 4 days old or less than 10 edits) can no longer edit this article. SnottyWong ^yak 01:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for taking action. I hope that what is described as "semi-protection" translates into effective long-term protection.

Your attention to this vexing problem is appreciated.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonnist The Arizona Republic

Thank you, JzG and Snotty, for taking the initiative on getting long-term protection for this article. I have taken a shot at adding sourced content about Mr. Benson's distinguished career and notable public controversies. Comments and appropriate revisions are, of course, invited.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you, as well.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic

Keep -- BUT, this article needs to be watched very carefully because there have been some libelous edits. I'm an administrator, and I'm willing to aggressively revert or block users, or if necessary put temporary full protection on the article if anything improper arises. I am also willing to take potentially libelous material to oversight and delete such material from this page's edit history if appropriate. I have a lot of things on my watchlist, so I might not see every problem, but anyone should feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. COGDEN 02:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for your oversight and willigness to intervene aggressively as needed to weed out and purge libelous material.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic

Comment - as an oversighter, I was called in to address some egregious violations of our BLP policy and my immediate reaction was to want to raze this article to the ground; kill it with fire. There were dozens of edits, lasting a very long time indeed, that could only have been done with malice intent - Alison ^❤ 07:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And fact that it cited sources (i.e., it wasn't an "unreferenced BLP") was of course meaningless against one or more determined vandals. Alison, you probably know this, why aren't we limiting BLP edits to registered confirmed accounts? It won't screen out all, but it will screen out many of these people, leaving us with the worst cases like this one to deal with.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect & protect: to Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning. Whilst the topic may, minimally, meet WP:CREATIVE, he is not so obviously famous, nor the material on him so extensive, that it is reasonable to ignore his request for deletion -- especially when a redirect target, containing information to his main reason for prominence, is readily available. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- My ultimate preference would be deletion, redirection and protection. That appears to me the most effective and perhaps the least complicated approach. I did not seek or authorize this bio placement in the first place and its continual, malicious and ad hominem content change has been a source of ongoing frustration and concern for me (as I sense has been understood during the course of this discussion by participants involved in the dialogue).

Thank you for your consideration.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Repubic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.158.27 (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but actively protect - Benson is clearly notable, so there's no basis for removing the article. The Pullitzer is conformation of notability, not the reason for it; the reason is his body of work. However, we absolutely must enforce WP:BLP, with no excuses. If the semi-protection doesn't work, I recommend indefinite Full Protection. This article is not being actively worked on, so the overhead of occasionally asking an administrator to make a change requested on the talk page is going to be minor in comparison to the BLP violation risk. I believe that being fully locked down is sufficient to assuage the subject's very reasonable concerns with compromising on the content of Wikipedia. Dylan Flaherty 14:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe there is clearly a justifiable basis for removing the bio if it cannot be reliably protected from continued libelous alteration. I would agree that it can remain up, but only if there is full protection from the kind of malicious falsification that it has regularly been subjected to. In the past, there has not been such a safeguard in place and, as a result, the bio has been the target of continual slanderous attack. Please fix it or nix it.

Thanks you.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.158.27 (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you can sue the vandals, of course, but that would be a herculean effort. back before wikipedia was big, attack blogs and (X)sucks.com websites were the way people were smeared. in your case, you've raised your profile enough (among wikipedians) that you're more safe having an article than not having one, because if you didn't, the vandals will go elsewhere.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep as per Arxiloxos. Presuming the editor claiming to be the subject is, deletion is never the proper method of avoiding vandalism. Edward321 (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- If continued vandalism of the bio cannot be avoided or effectively firewalled against, then deletion, in my opinion, is a proper approach for dealing with the problem; otherwise, the problem continues here. Yes, the vandals may go elsewhere if wiki takes down the bio, but at least the vandals are no longer able to continue their libelous assaults on this site.

In the past, when vandals were adulterating the bio (and, in response, limited efforts were being made by wiki to thwart such attacks), I began receiving emails from anonymous individuals whom I suspected harbored malicious intent, urging me to put up by own bio on this site. I refused to do so (and did not answer their communications), believing it was possible they were simply wanting to gain access by subterfuge to my own authored bio with the intent to mess with it.

In short, there has been an ongoing and relentless effort to infect the bio in question with slanderous claims--an effort which I suspect will continue. Therefore, deletion is an option that I believe should be seriously considered and ultimately utilized if wiki cannot stop the vandalism.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.158.27 (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long term protection is the solution for the problems that this bio has had, not deletion. Notability per wikipedia's notability guidelines is clear and not marginal. I note the recent protection is the first time this has happened to the article and should along with the pledges above to monitor the article prevent problems from recurring. Davewild (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Please then lock and block it against continuous vandal assault. If that cannot or will not be done, then please delete it.

I do not feel that I should be expected to tolerate this kind of ongoing libel and unfounded attack which has persisted for some time and about which I have lodged understandable, polite and protocol-followed complaint--all the while requesting effective remedial action.

Thank you.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.158.27 (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article says "Benson was awarded the 1993 Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning". Yeah, that sounds like a pretty notable person in his field. Dream Focus 19:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily meets inclusion standards. I am entirely sympathetic to Mr Benson's entirely legitimate concerns over vandalism, and for that reason I will add myself to the list of people who will watchlist the page and actively monitor for inappropriate editing. Thparkth (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- wiki, in my view, has a serious and unavoidable responsibility to safeguard its platforms against libelous misuse. It is troubling to me that as a matter of apparent practice wiki makes allowance and provides opportunity for anonymous individuals to edit, change, and even warp the writings of someone else.

If wiki is going to permit this secretive editing and changing of what others author here, then wiki has a grave responsibility to clean up malicious "rewrites" when they occur and to thereafter protect the articles against such abuse in the future.

Better yet, I think that when libelous assaults by shadowy attack dogs (assaults which are obviously designed to harm the reputation and character of those whom they target through the insertion of patently false information) are spotted and reported, wiki should permanently freeze the article under siege (after purging it of its invented content), so that it cannot be viciously manipulated in the future.

Otherwise, simply monitoring the article under assault will not solve the problem--given that the article (as history has clearly shown in this case) will likely remain constantly under siege and thus will repeatedly require revision back to reality.

Lock it and block it, once and for all, please.

I didn't want this bio up here in the first place but now that it is, I request that it be soundly secured--and if not soundly secured, then promptly deleted.

Thank you.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.155.172.22 (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Benson,

If the outcome of this deletion discussion is that we should keep the article, which seems possible at the moment, I would ask you to give the new arrangement a chance. The typical anonymous vandal will not be able to edit the page, and you have a good number of experienced editors watching out for any inappropriate additions. Yes, we may have to remain vigilant forever, but that's pretty much what we do. If the problems continue, there are other means available to give the article even stronger protection.

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I hope you are correct in your assurance that under the new arrangement "the typical anonymous vandal will not be able to edit the page." I'm concerned, as I am sure you are too, with the atypical anonymous vandal.

I will, however, give it a chance (assuming the article is retained), and I do appreciate the collective willingness here to remain vigilante.

If, however, the firewall is breached in the future, then Plan DP: Delete, Please.

Thank you.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.155.172.22 (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having won a Pulitzer is significant enough for notability. As there are issues regarding vandalism, we can indefinitely semi-protect the page to prevent unregistered or new users from editing it, or we could use pending changes to ensure that all edits are reviewed before being posted to the public. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Semi-protection is not what I am looking or hoping for.

If forced to choose, I'd prefer your second option of ensuring that all edits are reviewed before being publicly posted (perhaps combined with the first approach of preventing unregistered or new users from editing the bio--if such a duo counter-measure is possible).

Thank you.

Steve Benson Editorial cartoonist The Arizona Republic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.155.172.22 (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Pulitzer Prize awardee/winner speaks for notability.Vonjob944 (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.