Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Eric Cunningham

Eric Cunningham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is wrong. Eric Cunningham was a provincial politician and Geoff Scott was a federal politician. They never ran against each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.17.21 (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done According to the Winnipeg Free Press, Wednesday, September 5, 1984 (page 15) seen here - Eric Cunningham did run in a federal election against Geoff Scott (and lost). In the future, you can leave a message on an article's talk page or you can always ask a question at Wikipedia's reference desk. EBY (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Wayne Madsen

Every so often (2009, 2010 and now 2013) an editor adds the pejorative description of "Conspiracy theorist" to the lead, usually with the same sources.
I keep asking for mainstream sources but he has only provided sources which I believe are not RS for the claim to be in the lead. The main argument by the two supporters of the term is that the blogs are mainstream reliable sources because most are hosted by mainstream newspapers. The references used, Talking Points Memo,[1] The Telegraph,[2] The Commentator[3] and the Atlantic Monthly[4] are blogs. One of the two Salon references says only that Madsen has "controversial views on espionage issues" while the other calls him a "conspiracy-minded blogger"[5] which is an appropriate term for his blog reporting and was originally in the lead. The Forbes source[6] for the claim is interesting as the conspiracy theory claim is not made by Forbes but is in a paragraph Forbes took from a blog called Harry's Place that it included in the article. The most Forbes itself states is that Madsen "has some fairly out there views" which Forbes states is probably the only reason The Observer pulled the story, as the article goes on to say: however left field the source is what he’s actually said seems to be largely true and indeed a matter of public knowledge for some years now…So the basic information is indeed true yet still they have taken the piece down.[7] So we have the bizarre case of a journalist being called a conspiracy theorist in the lead based on him reporting a true story.
The Daily Beast[8] is a news source that has reported that Madsen is a conspiracy theorist but that article has an accuracy problem such as claiming Madsen has a zero batting average with previous "reporting". For example, Madsen was the first journalist to call the Obama birther scandal a hoax, he was the first to report on the existence of ECHELON and PRISM and he reported on the FIRSTFRUIT program a full year before the ABC "discovered" it’s existence and reported it as a scoop.
The editor has also included in the article claims that Madsen is "batshit crazy, to use the technical term" sourced from a blog[9] reporting on what someone had told them. And that Madsen is a "fruitloop who thinks Obama is gay" which is also sourced to a blog.[10] Both of these seem to be personal opinions not relevant for the article. He is primarily an investigative journalist and many of his "conspiracy theories" have been proven correct. Most of his reporting, especially that outside of his blog, has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Just because some of his more ridiculous claims have not been proven correct does not make him a conspiracy theorist or there would be no such thing as an investigative journalist. This argument over whether or not Madsen is a conspiracy theorist has been going on for four years and it needs to be resolved.

As well as reverting[11] the removal of the descriptive the editor has also removed the subjects memberships of several press organisations, a paragraph on his reporting on blood diamonds and a mention of who he was working for when investigating another story. All these mentions were positive, leaving the section with only negative claims regarding Madsens reporting. Wayne (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Telegraph, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Daily Beast, Forbes, ABC News, Talking Points Memo; these are not blogs. Andrew Sullivan's Atlantic Monthly might be considered a blog but it is ref'd as his opinion. The Commentator site is a hard news site, with good editorial practices. Each of these RS news organizations have described the subject as a "conspiracy theorist" or similar. We have academic experts condemning this BLP subject for unreliablility. (It is an academic who describes Madsen as "batsh*t crazy".) The subject is so controversial that the Guardian newspapers just had to pull a front page article because it was sourced to the subject. A quick google search will find even more RS than those listed. If these multitudes of refs are not sufficient to describe an article's subject I'm not entirely certain what would. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Beast may have believe that Madsen had a zero batting average because Madsen has "discovered" that Obama is gay and has "reported" that Obama killed his gay lover in a bathhouse, that Obama was installed in the White House by the CIA, and that the Boston bombing was a US government operation. He has stated that the Mossad was involved in 9/11, the London bombings, the Bali bombings, and the Cole attack, and that former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel is a Mossad agent. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick Google brings up a RS poynter.org "conspiracy theorist Wayne Madsen". I added the ref to the lead. As Conspiracy theorist appears to be his notability (along with journalist etc), I previously linked to broader notability topic per WP:LEAD > WP:CONTEXTLINK. Damian Thompson at blogs.telegraph.co.uk is a RS WP:NEWSBLOG - "a fruitloop", "an unusual gentleman". There seems to be adequate sourcing.

Now, as for the credibility of Madsen's blogging, it is not up to us to judge but the reliable sources.

WP:BOOMERANG seems to be pertinent here - if "two supporters" are in agreement (and I'm not sure if that includes me or that makes three?) then that might indicate that there is consensus, and I'm not even sure why it has been taken here when the talk page seems to adequately reply to User:WLRoss. This seems WP:DEADHORSE. If this issue keeps surfacing, and there's allegations of whitewashing / POV pushing on the article, then maybe this is the right place to be discussing after all? Widefox; talk 11:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The sources are fine and its the same one editor that is whitewashing-wikilawyering that article for years trying to paint Madsen as some mainstream investigative reporter or what not. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I have never claimed that Madsen was a mainstream investigative reporter and I'm not the one making false claims about sources. I don't even read the stuff the guy writes, I'm trying to keep the article neutral after noticing that some editors appear to add only negative material and delete anything positive they can. Don't you find it strange that in the reporting and opinions section it's all negative? Why don't you include the notable reporting he has done to balance it? Wayne (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE applies. It is undue WP:WEIGHT. Also, please retract the narrative that you are the only balancing editor, when I've edited the article the first time today, so it seems a bit AGF bordering on OWN. Widefox; talk 17:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Madsen may be unreliable and batshit crazy but that doesn't require him to be described as a conspiracy theorist in the lead. Firstly, I suggest that editors read the sources before accepting User:Capitalismojo's word that they support the claim. For example, User:Widefox has accepted the Telegraph as adequate sourcing per WP:NEWSBLOG yet the Telegraph never mentions the word "conspiracy" anywhere in the article so is unreliable for the claim. As for the sources Capitalismojo claims are hard news not blogs, The Telegraph URL says it's a blog and it does not call Madsen a conspiracy theorist anyway, it calls him "a fruitloop", the Seattle Post Intelligencer does not call him a conspiracy theorist, it reports that someone they spoke to said he was batshit crazy, I've discussed why the Daily Beast is not reliable, Forbes does not call him a conspiracy theorist either, Talking Points Memo is a blog and The Commentator may be a hard news site but the page says it's a blog (comment). Only a single source from the list Capitalismojo gave above supports the claim made and that is only borderline reliable at best because it is not mainstream media, appears to be written in blog style and for the factual errors it contains. Why he uses so many sources that do not even make the claim as refs for the claim is beyond me and calling blogs hard news simply because they are newspaper blogs is also a worry. This has been an ongoing dispute for four years which has included the deletion of anything positive about the guy and until The Observer debacle only blogs made the conspiracy theorist claim. Capitalismojo wont even allow much of his career to be detailed because he says the third party sources use Madsen as their source. Even self published should be acceptable because if he had lied about his career in the Navy and NSA his critics would have mentioned it to discredit him. The Observer article being pulled has prompted some sources to claim he is a conspiracy theorist but is this a reliable claim or a kneejerk reaction considering the actual story is largely true? Madsen never gave them the article to print, in fact Madsen never even wrote the original, it was sourced by the Observer from an interview Madsen gave to a blog. Wayne (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We do not care what your opinions of him are, RS say that. I think wikilawyering non-sequiturs about Telegraph sources is quite transparent. WP:BOOMERANG applies here. WP:LEAD > WP:CONTEXTLINK as notability. Quite a deadhorse really. Widefox; talk 16:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is it wikilawyering to point out that the Telegraph does not make the claim so shouldn't be used to support the claim? Anyway, I just had a look at the Madsen lead...it's now written pretty much how I argued it should read four years ago, mention that he's described as such not that he is. We'll see how long it lasts. Wayne (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Telegraph is obviously not a blog and, more importantly, it not used in relation to or referencing "conspiracy" in the article.. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I am pleased that we have a lead that everyone can agree on. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It is tempting to be cautious per BLPs and not spell-out a conspiracy theorist as such, but this directly flies in the face of WP:FRINGE " Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear.". Widefox; talk 18:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure "conspiracy theorist" needs to be in the lead; but it needs to be noted as the majority view. It may not be the most notable thing about him, but it's accurate and sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with mention in the lead that he has been called one but how is a majority view when it is so difficult to find a reference in support? Of the five refs used to support the claim in the lead, four are newsblogs and the only hard news ref is reporting on what the blogs say about it. Then we have the problem of inaccuracies in the refs with several claiming the story itself is a conspiracy theory despite it being proven to be true. Wayne (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Abdul Mutalib Mohamed Daud

Abdul Mutalib Mohamed Daud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone more experienced than I am with BLP issues take a look at this? I wonder about WP:BDP with regards to the rape allegations, and the sourcing for notability looks pretty poor at the moment - there is this, which is linked in the article, and some Google hits like this, which isn't in the article but indicate he may be notable as a witness in a political 'scandal', and as an activist, but I'd like a second opinion. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 03:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed it. I'm honestly not sure if this was something the subject wrote or reported on, since it was under "Selected publications" but it was talking about someone else? I suspect there's an issue with English proficiency here. In any case, it's a serious allegation and unless we have a reliable English source or a trusted editor that could verify the information, it stays off. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks - and sorry I missed your reply. English proficiency is an issue, amongst others, but I didn't want to prejudge based on my previous interactions with the editor. Assistance appreciated - cheers. Begoon ^talk 12:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Tom Kundig

Tom Kundig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tom Kundig, an American architect, maintains through several caretaking accounts what appears to be a vanity biographical page. As he is currently embroiled in a dispute over a controversial structure of his in Washington State's Methow Valley, I have added a Controversy section to his page summarizing the dispute.

While I am desperately trying to maintain NPOV, I am not a disinterested party, as I can see the property in question from my office window. Kundig's publicists seem to use drive-by one-off editorial accounts, alternately sanitizing his page and adding uncited enumerations of their in-courtroom legal victories. I would very much welcome outside review and correction before this devolves into an edit war. Goetter (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

While your POV might be considered neutral at first glance, you are violating if not the letter at least the spirit of WP:NOR. Where you say ...violates not only good environmental design[16] but also the protective covenants[17]... you are linking to the documents that would be used to technically enforce the removal of the structure, which makes them primary sources. Whatever you are claiming in that paragraph needs to originate from secondary sources, and preferably not that website that organizes and documents opposition since it's impossible for them to have a neutral POV. Which leads me to the next issue - if there is no significant coverage of the issue by secondary sources (media, news, etc) then I'd have to question whether or not the entire section merits inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Truly, I did not completely understand WP:NOR. I'll prioritize secondary sources, and redact primary sources not backed by secondaries. Thank you for your speedy feedback. Goetter (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The interpretation of "good environmental design" is entirely subjective and not subject to factual claims. The claim that the building violates covenants is a matter of legal dispute. I've also renamed the section to be more descriptive. "Controversy" is deprecated as a section title because it's entirely uninformative. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"Controversy" is a pretty common section title in biographies of living persons, but I agree, it is not informative. Thank you for the NPOV lesson. I was incapable of the objectivity required to summarize and cite The Other Side's position. Goetter (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't be common and it's increasingly being removed because it's a meaningless word. Anything and everything could be a "controversy". Perhaps a more accurate phrase would be "legal dispute." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• A few points: http://www.movethehut.org/ is a 'soapbox' link used in the article as a ref, http://www.methownet.com/grist/ seems to be a biased blog and shouldn't be used as a source for contentious material as well as http://www.mnn.com/about-us . http://www.seattleweekly.com/ and http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/ I would say are RS without looking into whether they are 'huffpostish' which I don't think we use for contentious tabloid trivia. Do we need 6 sources for 3 sentences? If any want to see truly ugly then there is http://www.flickr.com/photos/7663586@N02/5131774896/ on a ridgeline in a national park that is privately owned restaurant at the top of the Jasper Tramway. If there are editors that are connected to the subject they may wish to source images of the cabin with the siding on. Links to soapbox sites with intentionally ugly images of it just creates a bias in the article. "...the cabin can be seen from the valley. But he contends that the photos publicized by Move the Hut, like the one above, use a telephoto lens that make the structure seem bigger than it is. “We’ve had people call us and say: ‘We can’t find it. Where is it?’” I think it is a trivial and local issue that doesn't belong in a BLP article. The subject may be notable but the issue isn't. If a non-notable subject were to be involved would we include the issue in an article on building codes and legal disputes in Washington state? Local coverage by two sources shouldn't cut it for 'widely covered' and 'notable'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.movethehut.org/ is only cited to identify the opposition. http://www.methownet.com/grist/ describes only the fact that there were broad-participation meetings preceding the coalition of said local opposition. The hut has no siding, unfortunately, hence no images of the hut with siding exist. Per the other sources cited, the hut is quite easy to see from the valley floor: said quote was sourced from the builder. Without this single dissenting item, this BLP article is otherwise a puff piece by the subject's publicists, per its edit history. Goetter (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be far too much detail for a BLP article. A shorter version would be: "Kundig built a cabin at x and x filed a pending lawsuit claiming it violates x. Kundig claims that x was not violated and once completed it will blend in." As it stands now it has more detail than some murder trials we have here. The more trivial an issue the less material we should use in smaller articles. This one could be considered a coatrack for the local soapbox. We shouldn't be giving them a larger forum here than they deserve. Especially if there are SPA accounts on both sides.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Roman Reigns

Roman Reigns

I keep correcting this, and it's beginning to get out of control. Roman Reigns is engaged to the mother of his child, and there is no verifiable proof to prove otherwise. Can we please have his page locked from non registered users, so as to stop the vandalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Reigns&diff=561748042&oldid=561747840 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Reigns&diff=562797722&oldid=562784191

Unsourced material removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Anil Ambani

Anil Ambani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some help here please. There's a tag team of new editors/IPs doing this --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... I'm at 3RR and don't feel comfortable invoking WP:BLP so I'm not reverting any more. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Jeepday has blocked the main editor for 3RR. Lectonar (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. The editor finally started to discuss after the block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

For the time being we might consider this  Done. Lectonar (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Subject: Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati: No action/Reply on most of the Suggestions on Talk page/New Section. Please Guide

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Respected Authorities: I and few others went for lot of suggestions on the Talk page of the article. Most of the suggestions on the Talk page of the article were not replied by any one. Yes there are few people who took very good initiative to take care of few of the concerns but unfortunately maximum of them were not even replied. I have no guts nor competence to edit the article of the subject. As an edit might not be liked by others. Moreover I strongly believe that the article has lot of scope for improvement and the subject is highly notable. I have already mentioned the scope for improvement on Talk page New Sections. Please Guide: Respected Regards Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That's because no one is inclined to puff up the article any more. As I advised you on the talk page, stop talking up your own achievements. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And now you're forum shopping [12]. Wonderful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ben Bernanke at Bilderberg Group

File:BernankeLeavingBilderberg2008.jpg

This picture (used in the article Bilderberg Group) is said to be of "Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke leaving the 2008 Bilderberg Conference." How in the heck do we know that? BayShrimp (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well it sure does look like it's Bernanke, but of course there's no telling where he was going at that moment. Why is it important? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

To most of us it isn't. But to conspiracy fans it shows that the Federal Reserve and the Bilderberg Group are, well, conspiring. And that Bernanke is part of the conspiracy, so it could be potentally negative and poorly cited material on a living person. BayShrimp (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I took the picture off the article. Oddly enough it is also being used on quite a few European WP's, especially considering it is just a picture of a guy falling asleep in the back seat of a limo. :-) -BayShrimp (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, he isn't falling asleep. This image taken at the same time shows him looking down using a cell phone or similar: http://cryptome.org/info/bilderberg08/pict7.jpg --Canoe1967 (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I guess I feel better about the state of the economy. :-) BayShrimp (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I was also wondering what message the picture was sending: "Bernanke, exausted from conspiring world domination, falls asleep as he leaves Bilderberg conference." Or: "Bernanke finds conference so boring he falls asleep." :-) BayShrimp (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The BLP argument here doesn't hold water. He's a high-ranking public official and it doesn't serve WP's purpose to protect the public from knowing about his engagements just because it might get commented on by someone on the David Icke forum. Formerip (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with that (there is no BLP issue) but I also agree to the removal of the photo from that article because we cannot possibly verify the context. We don't know if the photograph truly depicts what the uploader says it depicts, and its inclusion (in that context) might be controversial or inappropriate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we can verify the context if we have Google. It comes from a series of photos which is here. I think there may be reason to wonder about the licencing, since the photo comes from a defunct flickr account, but I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt as to the context. Formerip (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Paula Deen and Category:Hate speech

An IP editor has proposed adding Paula Deen to Category:Hate speech. That didn't seem to smart to me. I took a look at the category, and notice that there are only three people listed, all BLPs. Though I find all three somewhat unsavory characters personally, are these really the three worst examples of people's hate speech in history? I don't think so. I have my doubt that any living person belongs in this category. Articles about hate speech laws and cases are fine for this category. Are we going to add Paula Deen to this category but leave out Julius Streicher? Fortunately, he's dead, so I can use him as a negative example here without fear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I say take it off. There is no proof that she hated anyone, although she might have. Besides that I don't think anyone would say she is important in the history of hate speech. BayShrimp (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that Category:Hate speech should be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Besides being a magnet for BLP violations, it simply isn't all that useful as a category. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I see only one BLP in the category currently -which seems germane to me, but feel free to remove the cat from it or to question the BLP existence- so it is hardly a "magnet for BLP violations", and I see lots of entries which make perfect sense like "Hate speech in Country X" articles, or notable court cases. It seems useful to me, and with little BLP issues. --Cyclopia^talk 15:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The question is how many were added then removed because they were BLP violations. Does anyone know how to get a list of pages removed from a cat? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If they have been removed, then everything is working correctly and there is nothing to report. --c y c l o p i a^talk 16:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If they were placed inappropriately, then WP:BLP policy may well have been violated, and we can't just pretend everything is well. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

But such violations have been since fixed. This means that everything works. The thing goes like this: There is a sensible category, which is for listing articles related to the topic of hate speech. Sometimes, someone makes a nasty mistake and puts a BLP in the category. This happens, just like BLPs get vandalized and whatnot. That is bad. But as violations can be put in, so we can remove them. If they're removed quickly and unequivocally, that's exactly what should happen. We can't make BLP violations magically stop, unless we remove all BLPs from WP (I know there is people sympathetic to this solution). And we cannot 100% prevent category misuse in BLPs unless we remove all possibly negative categories. So what we do? We keep eyes open and fix problems as they come up. That's what's happening now, apparently, and while not ideal, it is the best we can do without tearing the 'pedia to pieces. --c y c l o p i a^talk 17:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A clear misuse of categorization if ever there were one. Collect (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Lapo Elkann

Lapo Elkann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For quite some time, IPs have been adding increasingly sensationalist claims (as evidenced by the "appetite" subject heading I've removed several times, that's unfortunately preserved in at least one edit summary) about the subject's private life, unrelated to whatever notability the subject has. The IPs, likely all for a single user, have lately posted an odd message on the article talk page about "true facts" and keeping the subject "responsible for acts and behavior". Somebody's got an agenda here, and not a very healthy one. Request at RFPP hasn't been acted on. I suspect some RevDel is called for, as well as eyes on the article -- this has been going on at least since April. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify the context: As an Italian, I think I can explain some of this.

Yes, the way the IP edited is quite BLP-uncompliant, in wording and sources. But the issue is a bit beyond usual tabloid garbage. The overdose, that put him in life danger, has been covered by all major Italian media (cfr. [13], [14], [15]) as the subsequent circumstances (cfr. [16], [17]). Maybe outside can look like standard gossip, but it has been huge, in Italy. While it shouldn't be given undue weight, it is bizarre for every Italian reader that the bio doesn't cover the episode. I understand thus the IP frustration. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It may be "bizarre" to Italian readers that we don't repeat stories about drug overdoses and frienships with transvestites that happened eight years ago, but it is certain that we don't sensationalize them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, knowing the context would help. It is far from the usual gossip scandal. It has been a turning point in the image of the person and the business empire his family is connected to -which is by far the most important business empire of Italy, FIAT. There are academic Italian books that cite the episode, as well as psychology books, as books on cocaine traffic. It is even mentioned on Italian chronologies of Italian contemporary history. I understand the skepticism from outside, but really, this is beyond tabloids. -- cyclopia^speak! 10:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Raymond Monsour Scurfield

Raymond Monsour Scurfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Most of this article was written by Professor Scurfield. In a few instances the article comes across as promotional, e.g., including information about his private practice.

At the same time, Professor Scurfield is one of the pioneers in the psychological trauma field, both in terms of understanding the long-term psychosocial impact of trauma, particularly with combat veterans, and in developing treatment interventions to help such individuals suffering from what we now know as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). For example, not only is Professor Scurfield a Vietnam veteran himself, he was one of the driving forces behind the development of Vet Centers within the Department of Veterans Affairs. As a psychologist working for the VA, I can attest to the tremendous value of Vet Centers, based largely on scores veterans who have told me how much a Vet Center helped them and their families.

I wanted to offer Professor Scurfield some friendly suggestions regarding how he can edit the article so that it adopts an undisputed neutral point of view and, relatedly, so that it does not come across as promotional. However, I am still a relatively new editor, which brings me here to ask if you might offer Professor Scurfield suggestions.

Thank you very much - Mark / Mark D Worthen PsyD 01:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

friendly suggestions regarding how he can edit the article he shouldn't edit his own bio, that never ends well. He should use the article talk page for suggestions on how to "improve" the article. --Malerooster (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I would refer him to read WP:COI. --Malerooster (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Malerooster. I posted some suggestions for the professor, including reference to WP:COI, on the article talk page. Mark D Worthen PsyD 07:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Orsini family

Anons are used (now several times daily) since 24 Januiary 2013 to restore an unsourced and at least partially inaccurate claim that an alleged illegitimate son, "Dr. Emmanuel Bertounesque", is the rightful heir to the Orsini family's hereditary titles, in the article on the historical noble Italian Orsini family, several members of which are living. The allegations directly refer to and concern living persons mentioned by name in the offending edits. The inaccuracies have been pointed out and explained on the talk page. Diffs are here, here, here, here and here. It is obvious that the editor understands the nature of the BLP objection because the last-mentioned dif ends with a cite to an Italian Yahoo groups article about a lawsuit for public recognition by an alleged illegitimate daughter of soon-to-abdicate Albert II of Belgium: That cite, however, does not mention the Orsini family or its members in any way. Since most of the inserted violations and reverts of corrections are done by new anons, protecting this article from this 7 month pattern of BLP violations necessitates that the page be semi-protected. FactStraight (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Techno Viking

Techno Viking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) In the article and on its talk page, there are various (poorly or not sourced) speculations about name and identity posted about a person, who has never agreed to be published but explicitly expressed dissent and per court decisions is granted his name and images are not published anymore by a fine of €250,000 [18]. Several edits on the article and talk page should be hidden, for ex. [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]!!, [25], [26], [27], ... and the whole article between [28] and [29]. --Trofobi (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

 DoneThe picture is down, pending a decision from a copyright editor. In the meantime, please remember that legal threats are never the way to go. Redacting article histories is pretty extreme, let's first see if the picture is fair use. Thanks. EBY (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"Legal threat"? Ouch, sorry if my words should sound like this, that has never been my intention. I'm not a native english-speaker and have only tried to translate the most important parts from the court paper for helping the experts here who perhaps are not native german-speakers. And if anything here should sounds like I could be the "unknown man" this story is about, sorry to disappoint you, I'm not (wouldn't object to have a body like his! ;) --Trofobi (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Darren Breslin

Darren Breslin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am making a complaint on behalf of Darren Breslin. The information on his Wikipedia page is inaccurate, upsetting and has caused considerable distress to Darren. He did not go to Lourdes to 'try and get cured of cancer' as the article suggests. Considering it is an orphan article and does not have any reliable resources regarding Darren's personal life I am requesting that this information is removed immediately. Hopefully this can be done as quickly as possible and I will not have to undertake further action. Regards, C. Lagan

I've removed it. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Objection petition for the proposed deletion of the Page FAUSTER ATTA MENSAH

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Objection to Proposed deletion of FAUSTER ATTA MENSAH Page, dated

Greetings to you!

I saw a page of deletion request concerning FAUSTER ATTA MENSAH This Person is a Public Figure and we noticed his profile is proposed for deletion. I personally work with the African Union, department of Science and technology and the Executive director of regional outreach programs. Can you help improving or giving an objection to the deletion of this page on our behalf, since we are absolutely novice and new to Wikipedia?. or is there any way you can teach us on how to give an official objection? or for someone to help us buil the page FAUSTER ATTA MENSAH?

Fauster (25 Dec, 1986)was born in Cape Coast in the central region of Ghana, he attended the ADISADEL COLLEGE which was a High School in the year 1999 and later graduated from the UCC with a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics 3005 and a Master of Science degree in Computer science from the CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY2011. You may equally request his academic referees telephone contacts, Lest you prefer them instead. Thanks.

With Kind regards!

Cindy Lawson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindy Lawson (talk • contribs) 22:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This biography of a living person is unreferenced. The topic of a Wikipedia article must have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that show notability. Please read the general notability guideline for more information. Unless you can show this type of coverage, the article will be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Also some of the text does not match with sources. I've removed it.--Auric talk 22:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tami Erin

• Tami Erin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reported via OTRS regarding the addition of a minor arrest that I removed as being undue and irrelevant at best. I also culled all the unsourced information from the bio, but now an IP (possibly the subject or someone associated with them) has decided that while sourced negative information is intolerable, it's perfectly OK for positive information to be unsourced and have restored it a few times. I'm going offline for the rest of the day, so a few eyes would be appreciated. Maybe protection if they keep it up. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That IP has already been blocked this week for those kinds of edits to that article. I stuck a warning on the talk page. EBY (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

We have two editors repeatedly adding information about a trivial citizens arrest for a fight about pizza, or hidden video taping, or something. This got a couple of day's gossipy attention by tabloid style media outlets and was then forgotten. The two editors in question think removal of the content by an IP is "vandalism". How's that for a new definition of vandalism? One complains that the IP didn't discuss the matter. But neither of these editors said a word on the article's talk page, despite a spate of reversions.

Yes, the newbie IP shouldn't edit war to keep in puffery. But experienced editors also shouldn't edit war without discussion to add trivial crap about a pizza fight. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It was a citizen's arrest no less, and it's unclear whether or not Erin was even charged. Whoever is adding this in should be forced to copy out WP:BLP in longhand a hundred times. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Bill Maher/Inflammatory Sentence Added

The LAST SENTENCE in the first paragraph of the Personal Life (or Bio) section of the page for Bill Maher appears to be recently added without a reference. More importantly, the sentence seems overtly inflammatory. I would 'edit' it out personally on the 'no reference' basis alone, but I do not want whomever inserted that sentence to turn his or her hatred toward me. I'm requesting that a moderator please review that section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.18.161 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism. Reverted by bot within a minute of being made, over 9 hours before you posted here. If you saw this anywhere, it must have been cached by an outside server, over which we have no control. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Veronica Scott

Veronica Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page seems dubious at best. Most of the links are from old open post sites. Very little relevancy to the world of fashion. Does not warrant a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.43.103.164 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note that this page is intended for issues which require immediate attention - unsourced negative and defamatory material etc. General comments regarding the merits of articles are best left to the article talk page - or if you wish, you may propose articles for deletion yourself: see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Lawren Pope

Lawren Pope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page seems dubious at best. Most of the links are from old open post sites. Very little relevancy to the world of fashion. Does not seem to warrant a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.43.103.164 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

See my comments in the section above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)‎

in records section USopen final 2012 and Australian open final 2012 are both written as of longest duration which is not possible so should be ammended

2012 US Open – Men's Singles final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2012 Australian Open – Men's Singles final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

in records section USopen final 2012 and Australian open final 2012 are both written as of longest duration which is not possible so should be ammended

The first paragraph of the US Open article calls that match the "second-longest men's final in the Open era, only behind the 2012 Australian Open final." What needs to be corrected? Rklear (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Lisa Pulitzer

Lisa Pulitzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just a note to point out that the person who did this one linked the name of a an alleged murderer, Jerry Akers, to a baseball player by the same name.

I've removed the link (you could have too). Thanks for the correction. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Anna Chapman

Anna Chapman's infobox gives her "criminal status" as "Deported to Russia". This is wrong on two levels.

First, assuming she was deported, this does not affect her "criminal status" because in the United States removal proceedings are civil, not criminal, in nature. On that fact alone the information must be removed as it implies she is a criminal, which she is not until she is convicted of a crime in a court of law, which is not even being asserted. Second, there is no assertions she was subject to a removal order, or even a voluntary departure agreement. A small minority of news media have used the phrase "deported", but this is a non-legal term that could conceivably include a number of situations, not least of which is the extremely common "plea bargains" and "deferred prosecutions" with the understanding she exit the country posthaste. But that's neither here nor there, because of the fact that, again, she was never convicted of a crime, which is what the "criminal status" implies.

Given that the article implies she is a criminal, this must be removed immediately. Int21h (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it. You could have done so as well. Also, the picture looks like a mugshot -- surely not the right choice, per WP:MUG, and sure we could have a better one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well, I figured its cloudy enough to be an argument. Now, if they want to, they can argue with you. ;) The mugshot issue came up already in discussion it seems. I haven't even really read the article, to tell you the truth. I got there with a curiosity about the mechanics her legal troubles, happened to notice there was no conviction, and here I am. Int21h (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The article says that she pleaded guilty to a criminal charge -- so it might be that she is in fact a criminal per US law (or something like that). On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be a source that is explicitly linked to that assertion. You're right to say that deportation is not a criminal penalty; on the other hand, the administrative action of deportation is sometimes adopted when someone has been convicted of a sufficiently serious crime. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Mo Rocca

Are we still specifically pointing out if a subject is gay? If their sexual orientation has impacted their life in a notable way (covered by reliable sources) by all means, put that in. But the simple fact that they're gay? [30], [31] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No, unless there is some kind of special aspect to their sexual orientation - for example, "the first openly gay [insert politician title here]" is common, but in this case it would be basically reducing him to being a gay comedian. It should be mentioned in the article of course, but not that way in the intro. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How should it be mentioned in the article if there's no special aspect? Just, "He is gay"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed categories about sexual orientation for which no sources were provided. Collect (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That may be my fault. There was this source (don't know if it's reliable) but I reverted it when I took out the "he is gay" statement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Perezhilton.com fails WP:RS every single time. Not even close to a legitimate strong source for such claims. Collect (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh that's right, I thought it was a MOS issue but it's actually sourced to that dude's site. Nevermind then, let's make sure it stays off until a more reliable source is provided. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In the OMG category - hundreds of gays are sourced to that site only! Collect (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as how he has stated he's gay on The Six Pack during an interview and this has been covered (including his boyfriend in 2011) I'm sure finding a legit source should not be too hard if someone does some digging. He is openly gay, it's not a BLP issue as much as a citation needed issue.Camelbinky (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Which was my original question. Are we noting this? If so, how would we add it (assuming appropriate sources)? "He is gay" seems as odd as "He is heterosexual" but others may have a different opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's a better source, The Advocate: http://www.advocate.com/politics/media/2011/07/28/daily-shows-mo-rocca-comes-out Gamaliel (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really -- the "source" is described as from a "podcast interview". Not a "reliable source" as far as I can tell. Unless we now count "podcasts" as "reliable sources." Collect (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Podcasts should be reliable if they come from a reliable source. If the BBC did interview podcasts I would definitely count that as reliable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A reliable source reporting on an interview where the subject himself provides the information? How is this insufficient? (Without the scare quotes this time, please. They're giving me a headache.) Gamaliel (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought for this type of thing we only accepted direct announcements from the subject, like a one-to-one interview from a RS where they specifically state that they are gay. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A podcast interview with the subject themselves is reliable for statements about themselves, unless we have doubt that it is actually the subject speaking. Unless a notable aspect of their fame/image, orientation should not be listed in the lede, but if there is a personal life section, their partner or other relationships can be listed as is common in hetro articles. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

List of people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

List of people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I haven't looked at this for a while, but some of the sources look pretty dubious. Thus [32], RS or not, simply has Will Smith saying "“I was the fun one who had trouble paying attention. Today they’d diagnose me as a child with ADHD." Parenting.com is used several times, but again it's happy to say Will Smith has ADHD on the basis of the same statement[33] which suggests to me it isn't necessarily a reliable source. And there's [34] which seems to be reporting 2nd hand stories. Dougweller (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated this article for deletion, as a massive BLP violation using tabloid sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It feels like we go through one of these "List of people who [insert pointless categorization here]" every other month. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I see it's just been deleted. Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

jane nelson

Jane Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-this article is basically a re-statement of claims made on the subject's campaign website. there are few citations and is clearly not written from a "neutral point of view" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.79.40.50 (talk • contribs)

After reading the above, I've done some minor work on this article. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Donald Nally

Donald Nally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Based on a report filed at WP:ANEW, I edited the article to pare down an absurdly WP:UNDUE section entitled "Racial Insensitivity Controversy at Northwestern". Strangely enough, editors were battling with an IP who kept removing the section. In other words, the editors kept restoring it. No section would be far better than the section that was there, in my view. The IP came back and removed the section again, and then a different IP filed the report at AN3.

Yet another IP has now reverted my edit. Putting aside the section header (which I had removed entirely), the so-called controversy hardly merits a blip. I haven't reverted the IP as I'd like others to look at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

On 30 June, the section in question was added to the article along with a sentence or two in the intro. I removed it and invited the editors, particularly those who kept adding the text, to discuss the matter on the talk page. Until Bbb23 today, nobody had responded. —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ukexpat has restored the pared down version and made some other changes to the article. There will probably be additional administrative actions taken to protect the article. In the meantime, I still invite regulars here to comment on whether the article should mention this incident at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Gary Yourofsky‎

An editor, Gary Tofu (talk · contribs), claiming to be Gary Yourofsky‎ is editing the article and removing all the current sources and replacing it with unsourced text that he is claiming to 100% accurate. Could someone else please review the article please. GB fan 14:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like he's been permablocked for COI and EW. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nigel Knight

Nigel Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am the subject of this BLP (Nigel Knight). I wish to comply with the requirements of the Wikipedia deletion policy for BLPs as stated below and request that my BLP be deleted.

“Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.158.186 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The policy concerned states that the views of the subject are relevant when a discussion regarding deletion is taking place: as yet there has been no such discussion - and incidentally, we'd need confirmation that you are indeed the subject of the article, though that can be dealt with later. For now, I'll look into the article further, and see how best to proceed. If you wish to communicate further, I think the best place might be the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, a deletion discussion was closed with consensus for keep, exactly one month ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigel Knight). I don't think it is feasible to re-open it after so little time. Also I unfortunately have doubts on the subject being "relatively unknown, non-public". -- cyclopia^speak! 16:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

How the hell does one get good jobs at Oxford and Cambridge with so little attention to one's work?? (Actually, I know the answer to that question; just expressing a bit of frustration.) Anyway: normally I would give short shrift to requests like this from article subjects -- he clearly meets PROF#1, for one thing. But I agree that notability is borderline -- something apparent also in the earlier AfD -- and I think it would likely be deleted at a second AfD, particularly in light of WP:BIODEL (assuming validation via OTRS). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Preference for official portraits?

Does Wikipedia give preference to official portraits and images provided or published by the subject of the biography? Please see relevant discussion on Talk:Narendra Modi regarding infobox image(s). (permalink) See also: WP:AUTOPROB. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it has ever been discussed and we may need a guideline on it. Many editors like to include the newest image in the infobox. Many like to include ones from the peak of their career and much younger. It seems the younger images rarely get into the infoboxes until after the subject is dead though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Every Nation

• Every Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Olympic1012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A series of edits by a WP:SPA account over the last few weeks have been devoted to the 'criticism' section, singling out specific individuals within the church. I've pared the most overtly editorial and inadequately sourced stuff, but there's still a lot left that relies upon syntheses from Youtube videos. Would appreciate further eyes to help determine what's, er, kosher, and what isn't. Thanks, 76.248.144.216 (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I admire your tenacity. As far as I am concerned the article should be reverted back to at least its pre-June 24th version before User:Olympic1012 started editing it.--ukexpat (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's nothing I--and any conscientious editor--haven't always done here, though under various nomenclatures. I agree re: the pre-June 24 version, though at this point it would be better if someone else did it. Wish I'd used a bigger blade....maybe I'll drop Drmies a line. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Jim Mather

Jim Mather (Hanshi)

This is an article about a martial artist. I had not been familiar with the individual before encountering the article, but clearly the article has very serious issues, and has been flagged for years, with no improvement. As I posted on the article's talk page, the editor makes very extensive and very bold claims about its subject, elevating the individual to a legendary status with historical achievements, not just as a martial artist, but with notable accomplishments in other fields/careers. Despite the high amount of detail that is occasionally added to the article, no references have been added, save for one dead link. I have not received a response or seen any improvements attempted since I posted on the talk page, and since I left the relevant template message on the original author's talk page.

The obvious course of action, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, would be to immediately remove the contentious material. However, that would amount, in this case, to a near wiping of the article. I am not experienced enough with Wikipedia editing to know whether, or how, to proceed through the deletion process. In the article's defense, a google books search for "jim mathers karate" reveals that this individual was interviewed in a martial arts magazine on at least two occasions, and perhaps further research may support his notability, but I do not have the time or interest in this subject to research and rewrite an article on this individual. I do feel that something should be done, as this article continues to stand unaddressed.

I've tried to briefly familiarize myself with the appropriate policy regarding this type of issue, but a more experienced editor can likely resolve this far more efficiently. Please forgive me if I am approaching this improperly.AlmightyDoctor (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Turning it into a stub is perfectly acceptable for unreferenced bio info like this.. just get rid of it, stub the article and start over with available reliable sources per policy. — raekyt 23:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried to do that, but have never done so before. Does it need a special "tag" or something? --Malerooster (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What you did seems probably fine, use that as a base to build a better article from reliable sources. If someone starts edit warring over the stubbing then they can be pointed here. It's not a fight they're likely to win, BLP rules are pretty clear with unsourced content. — raekyt 02:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)