Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System

Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System

Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

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

This article is in violation of the policy Biographies of living persons. This article was not written to be truly about the lawsuit mentioned and is a Coatrack [WP: COAT] ( This particular lawsuit was filed March 3, 1992 and dismissed only 3 months later on May 27, 1992 and did not even go through the pleading process; this lawsuit is insignificant and as written only serves to damage a living person.)

This article appears to be written only to republish scurrilous allegations made in 1991 about a living person, which allegations were later proven to be untrue and the truth was published in numerous well respected media outlets: The Boston Globe, ABC, Time Magazine, LA Daily News, Business Wire. The false allegations were made during a 1991 broadcast of a CBS 60 Minutes program, and when the truth came out CBS took the unusual and appropriate action of repudiating the broadcast and removing the tape and transcript from public access: “The ‘60 Minutes’ segment was filled with so many factual discrepancies that the transcript was made unavailable with this disclaimer: ‘This segment has been deleted at the request of CBS News for legal or copyright reasons.’” The Believer. In light of the reliable published sources, this article is inaccurate and damaging to a living person, and I request that this article be deleted.

As interesting background information, this editor does seem to have a history of violating [Biographies of living persons] and [Neutral point of view] specifically on Werner Erhard and topics related to Werner Erhard. This edit history shows that his NPOV on this living person, and related topics, spans a plethora of articles where he is the single biggest contributor: http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/Est_and_The_Forum_in_popular_culture 80% of the edits (211) http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/Outrageous_Betrayal 80% of the edits (273) http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/The_Hunger_Project 38% of the edits (220) http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/Werner_Erhard 26% of the edits (434) http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/EST_training 27% of the edits (244) http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/Werner_Erhard_and_Associates 38% of the edits (144) http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/Scientology_and_Werner_Erhard 38% of the edits (70)

It is concerning and against WP:BLP for an editor to continue to publish inflammatory and damaging statements while fully aware that there are numerous published reliable sources that refute those statements. I respectfully request this article be deleted based on WP:BLP violations. DaveApter (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. The article's subject satisfies WP:NOTE. The nominator's concerns have been already raised and addressed, point-by-point, at the article's talk page ([1] [2] [3] [4]). The nominator is exhibiting behavior similar to that of Spacefarer (talk · contribs), who was warned for spurious nominations of multiple AFDs on this topic. -- Cirt (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note, in response to "this article appears to be written only to republish scurrilous allegations, which were later proven to be untrue": read WP:V! The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. —bender235 (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: The nominator has neglected to mention that I am the single most prolific contributor to Wikipedia of quality-rated-content on this topic. This includes one Featured Article (Getting It: The Psychology of est) and multiple Good Articles (Mork Goes Erk, Ney v. Landmark Education Corporation and Werner Erhard, Outrageous Betrayal, Werner Erhard (book), est and The Forum in popular culture). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Cirt as usual, has created a Fine Article with a plethora of diverse sources establishing Notability and to Boot 60 minutes segements on it. Also Concerned about Open COI on the nom part (though I applaud his decency on being open about). If the Nominator has concerns about WP:COATRACK then the solution is to make it NPOV. However Cirt has once again created a Neutral (From my POV at least.) It is not an Attack page or Coatrack in my opinion. Also may i Note the stats you have cited are accuate but its worth noting that EST-Popculture, Outrageous Betrayal are both GA having gone through some form of Peer review and been promoted as Neutral and Factually accurate. YOu have also failed to provide any evidence Cirt violating [Biographies of living persons] and [Neutral point of view] specifically on Werner Erhard and topics related to Werner Erhard. Please bring up such accuastions on the appropriate notice board as mudslinging here is counter proudcitve. Also you Cirts edits at Werner Heart seem to mostly be reverting vandalism and such [5]. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep Looks good and notable to me. Quite an important incident in it's own way. Not a coatrack at all. If the proposer states that it is out of date because there have been subsequent decisions made about the broadcast, then by all means up-date the article - with appropriate sources of course. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)