Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korey Rowe (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Based on discussion there seems to be a consensus that the topic appears to qualify for WP:BIODELETE. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Korey Rowe

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Korey Rowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Courtesy nomination on behalf of an anonymous IP who claims to be the subject, stating "Its inaccurate and hurtful to my life." See also discussion on my user talk page. As for my own opinion, leaving aside the current unverifiability of the subject's identity, the material in the article appears to be properly sourced to a degree that would earn at least a tepid keep from me. --Finngall talk 06:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:From Korey to Fingall :Check my facebook page, Finngall. I will post your name on it to verify it is me. And yes some if the information is properly sourced but it is clearly biased and incorrect. Not to mention the many good things I have done in the last 10 years not mentioned on here which were listed but reverted. My military records are public information and I served honorably until 2011 not 2005. There are links to those documents in this page. Furthermore the charges mentioned on here were dropped and that was reported by the same paper who did the original reporting. I would need a trial to present the amount of information needed to alter this correctly. So I feel your "tepid keep" is clearly the wrong decision as so many others already voted to remove this article. Why must I have something about myself I do not want that is a teaspoon image of my life? Here is the article - https://www.thedailystar.com/news/local_news/film-explores-veterans-and-ptsd/article_2bd493d2-4d91-594e-8a45-ef5625f1cf92.html This is the same paper this site uses for the original listing of the nonsense about me getting arrested. Read the line - "In 2011 was charged in New York with selling heroin. The charges were dropped and he was charged with misdemeanor facilitation." So to be clear the information about my military career is wrong, the information about the arrest is wrong and while it may have some loose "sources" they dont reflect the truth. So if a page is full of misinformation and it keeps being reverted back after my attempts to correct it the page should be considered toxic and being trolled and be removed even more so because I am the person who the page is about asking for it to be taken down.KoreyRowe
Note to all that the previous AfD discussion was in 2006, before many of the events listed in the current article occurred. As for the "why" of an article, this is an encyclopedia whose purpose is to provide information about notable subjects. It's not a social media site for people to tell the world about themselves; neither should it serve as a repository for hit pieces. We don't want the negatives to be given undue weight, but if that's all the verifiable information we have from the sources, then there's little that can be done.
If the consensus is to delete the article, so be it. If it is kept, then the fact that's we've got more eyes looking at has already resulted in the article being improved. Your wishes are being taken into account, but the outcome will be determined more within the framework of Wikipedia's policies and procedures. My "keep" opinion (note that it's not a vote--the final determination will be made based on the weight of the arguments rather than the numbers) is based on the notion that there has been sufficient coverage of you in the media to merit an article--positive or negative makes no difference. If more positive coverage is included, great. If better information to balance the arrest reporting is found, great, but we need that from secondary sources, not from your say-so. In any case, thank you for listening and discussing. --Finngall talk 17:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 06:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 06:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 06:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 06:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Korey, you won't usually find a large number of people who are sympathetic to "I want my Wikipedia page deleted because it talks about parts of my life I'm not happy with" -- WP:NPOV is a foundational tenet of Wikipedia. (There have been recent similar subject-requests-deletion debates that seem to be headed towards 'no consensus', which is a de facto keep.) I looked at the page history to see the changes you'd discussed that were reverted; they were reverted because they weren't sourced. If you re-added that information with reliable sources, following the guidelines in WP:COI for requesting changes to an article about you, I think there might be a better shot. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thank you for the feedback. I understand I will not find much support on this. Here is my counter argument. How can a source not be reliable when it is the same source already used on the page? The Daily Star is used as a source against me but when I had it updated to reflect the fact that of the charges were dropped from the same publication it was deemed not reliable; because I think overtime the standards changed. Maybe I am wrong. Furthermore, If I have the page against my will why am I not allowed to update it with positive information from reliable sources about new films or accomplishments? If the page cannot be deleted why can it not be at least non-biased? As it supposed to be a historical document of sorts should it not be? I have consistent press about me that is positive from LA Weekly, to RT, Military.com even. Are non of these usable?

https://www.military.com/undertheradar/2018/05/01/veteran-kory-rowe-shows-reality-ptsd-mile-marker.html https://www.laweekly.com/veteran-korey-rowes-documentary-spotlights-cannabis-benefit-as-ptsd-treatment/ https://www.westword.com/news/bitclub-network-was-too-big-to-fail-but-cost-investors-722-million-11642618 https://www.thedailystar.com/news/local_news/film-production-is-filled-with-oneonta-flair/article_a1d1bab8-17d6-5550-a0ab-0608b5074e4b.html

KoreyRowe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B0A4:70D:C0FB:E0F6:BE08:3A17 (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits to the article according to the sources you gave and cleaned up the superfluous Daily Star ref. I do think there's a bit of a balance problem in the article and it could do with some work, and I understand why you're unhappy with how it looks right now; the edits you proposed there are reasonable and I've balanced it out accordingly. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I thank you from the bottom of my heart for that, all I want is a fair representation or none at all. However it is still largely inaccurate and please allow me to explain. I was honorably discharged, stop. No more. I served two tours over seas for this nation. Why are unproven non-prosecuted allegations worthy of this article? If I deserted for real, and was in the wrong I would have gone to jail. Has it ever occurred to anyone that the reason I was not was because I was never in the wrong? Because I was never actually AWOL and that I served this nation honorably? I have been charged with crimes, sure. I admit that. But I was never prosecuted for them. I am not a felon. I am a business owner, husband and father. I am trying to live my life and I can't tell you how many jobs I have lost because of this article. I would like to restate that I would like this page deleted, I do not seek notoriety or fame. KoreyRowe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B0A4:70D:C0FB:E0F6:BE08:3A17 (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Now allow me to take on the heroin allegation, which also was not prosecuted and as you know as posted above the charges were dropped to a MUCH lesser crime. So in the new edit done by Vaticidalprophet the line about this uses a new link from the Post Standard that is only a repost of The Daily Star and references that link directly in the article. This is known as fruit of the poisonous tree. If the Daily Star is not a reputable publication then the reference here is also by proxy not of the standards required by Wiki and should be removed. Additionally, if you go to the link where my military records is posted you will also see the letters from my professors who backed me up on why I was there in the first place. I admit that is when I learned making docs could go to far but should I also be guilty in the court of public opinion of something I did not commit? https://web.archive.org/web/20140130214357/http://www.koreyrowe.com/2014/01/my-life-your-business.html
https://www.syracuse.com/news/2011/01/911_conspiracy_film_producer_i.html KoreyRowe  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B0A4:70D:C0FB:E0F6:BE08:3A17 (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Korey_Rowe_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1009525004"