- Seth Finkelstein (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Clearly does not fit within any CSD category. The only one that even comes close is G4, but I assure you that I personally wrote the entire article, complete with large number of sources culled from all over the web, many (some? I can't see the page now so I'm not sure) of which were not around five years ago. Let me quote from G4: "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version"... Except by astounding coincidence I cannot fathom this being a substantially identical page. I'm fairly comfortable with WP:N, WP:V and the like, so I think this page would probably survive AFD, but one thing is dead certain--this is absolutely not speediable. Red Slash 19:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment To be honest, I wouldn't even know that Seth existed if it had not been for my interacting with him at the Larry Sanger article. Regardless of how someone may perceive an editor here I think our WP:BLP policies have to come into play in this. There were a couple WP:RS articles such as wired.com and New York Times, but given the sparseness and age of the articles I'm not convinced that alone makes a person "notable". At the moment I'm inclined to think that this a borderline case, in which I would tend to favor the requests and desires of the person involved. In other words: I'm open to being convinced in either direction at the moment. I'm not sure what the "protection" was about? — Ched : ? 19:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Perhaps it is. But my understanding is that borderline notability pages get taken to AFD, not speedied without any matching speedy criterion. Red Slash 20:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding the following links to prior discussions:
- Comment: This is a G4 and BLP deletion; almost all of the information in Red Slash's version was in one or another of the prior versions of the long-deleted article. None of the reference sources post-date the initial deletion of the article or its subsequent deletion reviews. While I sympathize that Red Slash acted in good faith in recreating the article, the unfortunate reality is that the subject was barely notable at the time of the initial deletion, and has not become any more notable since then. If anything, it reinforces the correctness of the prior deletion decisions. Red Slash should have known that this was the subject of prior deletions and deletion reviews, because when he tried to start the page, he would have received a suitable notice. Hence, instead of following deletion policy (asking for a review beforehand), he just created the article. There's no indication that he even researched why it was deleted in the past, or why other actions had been taken. Just because there is a multi-year gap between deletion and the intention to recreate the article doesn't mean that the deletion reasons no longer apply. They do. Risker (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When an editor goes to write a new page that has been deleted, the notice says If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below. And believe you me (again, I have never seen the content of the old page), I created a new page with content that I synthesized from various reliable sources. Is that really a violation of policy? I remember once upon a time, a band that I rather like, Falling Up (band), was a band of debatable notability with one tiny album and their article got deleted at VFD. (Yes, VFD.) Then later someone else wrote a completely different article using various sources to back a claim of notability. Just like here, a well-meaning veteran speedy-deleted it. There was a VFU at Talk:Falling Up (band)#Vfu discussion archive and a repeated VFD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Falling Up (band), which it cleared. I see a lot of similarities between the two cases. Red Slash 01:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure using a deletion discussion from 2005 is really helping you here; the deletion policy has been completely rewritten a few times since then, and the biography of living persons policy came into effect and has been revised a few times since then, too. And, since you could not see the deleted content, how would you know whether or not what you were writing was similar to what was there before? It's pretty clear from the message you left on User talk:Seth Finkelstein that you were aware that he "disliked this stuff". Even still, I get that you recreated the article in good faith; it's just unclear to me why you didn't follow the second sentence of the advice for creating a previously deleted page. I'm still having a hard time really getting that you believed this was a new page, though I'm sure that's what you thought. Risker (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew, obviously, that an article about this guy had been written before (maybe you've forgotten? all users can at least see the deletion history, if not the contents). And I knew that the guy didn't like it because I read his articles on the Guardian's site. I knew it'd be controversial--I also am pretty sure this article's subject is notable. And everything on WP:BLP about this that I can see deals with attack pieces, which surely everyone will concede this wasn't. Neither WP:BLP nor WP:CSD suggest that rewriting a deleted article is grounds for a CSD. Red Slash 23:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And also, seriously? Not one of the sources I gave postdates December 2007? Really? I can't see, of course, and of course I don't think you're lying, but really? I was pretty sure I got at least a couple that did... Hmm, maybe not? Red Slash 01:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The closest is the link to his Guardian profile, but it's just a link to a list of his contributions there, and his last article for them was in 2009. Most are from 2001, 2003, 2005. Risker (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support deletion per my above comment, WP:BLPDEL, the subject's wishes, and Streisand effect. This is not a criticism of the 2013 author, simply my views on the current policies and best practices of the project. — Ched : ? 21:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the good faith
 Red Slash 01:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, how does WP:BLPDEL apply? Was there a negative word anywhere in the article? I actually kinda admire the subject... if anything, doesn't WP:BLPDEL support the decision to overturn? Red Slash 01:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion. This was not a recreation of a deleted article, this was a new article. That the two articles are going to have points of similarity is natural - they are about the same subject, and so the same points will arise. He meets notability criteria, he has a internet presence, and is discussed in several books (sources not used in the new article, but would be available to editors to use - some books which have been published since 2008, when the article was previously deleted. My understanding is that the rationale for deletion in 2008 was borderline notability coupled with concerns that Wikipedia could not protect the article. We have moved on since then, and I think we are in a greater position to protect articles against vandalism. However, the appropriate place to have that discussion is at AfD. The grounds for deletion are G4. The 2013 article did not have any resemblance to the 2008 article, other than subject matter and main points of the subject's notability. Wording and sources are different. It was a new article which appeared to be created from scratch. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Having "learned" from Wikipedia this morning that Orville Redenbacher died of autoerotic asphyxiation, I humbly submit that we are in no way in "a greater position to protect articles against vandalism." Perhaps once pending changes is applied to all articles we will be. 28bytes (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with 28bytes; that portion of SilkTork's comment is mystifying. By any rational metric, we're actually in a poorer position to combat vandalism today than in 2008. We have fewer active editors, fewer active admins, fewer clueful admins, and less support from the community and from ArbCom for BLP enforcement than in 2008. MastCell Talk 20:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The deletion seems to have been made without due process contrary to deletion policy. Warden (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. G4 applies because the claims for notability are the same as were addressed in the AfD and previous DRVs, even if the prose is new. Chick Bowen 00:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- G4 explicitly says that the article must be a recreation and "substantially identical". I fundamentally disagree with you on this assessment of the article I wrote. Red Slash 01:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. The article was originally deleted because of borderline notability combined with the subject's desire not to have a bio. There's no indication that either of those factors has changed, so deletion was the correct step. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But this was not an AFD-based deletion, it was a speedy with no criterion given, which is flagrantly outside of deletion norms (and probably policy). It is certainly not G4 because this is not a recreation and is in no way substantially identical to the earlier article (except if by astounding coincidence--I've never seen the original(s) so I guess I can't say for certain ). Red Slash 01:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Are not the significant numbers of GBooks hits, published since the underlying AFD, exactly such indications? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per se, no. They need to be assessed as containing secondary source material discussing the subject directly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are actually reinforcing my point. They are indications, not proof, and require assessment. By policy, that assessment should be performed by the community, not by a single administrator, and your response actually provides the key reason why speedy deletion was both inappropriate and contrary to policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yuck G4 does not apply to previous *arguments* or *sources*, so the G4 wasn't per policy. Having said that, I think this is a great argument for indefinite create protection on some BLPs, because the prior consensus was quite clear. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an interesting concept, Jclemens; I think at this point we don't have very many salted article pages, but I think you've got a good point. It would never fly coming from me, but might gather some momentum from you or others who are seen to be much more inclusionist. Risker (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per SlimVirgin. I have no reason to believe that Red Slash's (re-)creation was anything but a good-faith effort, but as SV notes, the subject does not wish to have an article. This wouldn't matter if the subject were (say) Joe Biden, but for people with borderline notability, we ought to respect their wishes to "opt out." 28bytes (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This sort of problem often arises with WP:CSD#G4 speedies regarding "substantially identical". Some people merely ignore the requirement. Others interpret it as meaning that the original reason for deletion is still valid with the current article. Does "substantially identical" have a weaker connotation in the US than in Britain (I'm British)? See wikt:substantially in relation to wikt:identical. To me it means that the versions are exactly the same except for matters that are of hardly any relevance. I can understand the wish to delete without fuss an article that has the same objections as before but, unfortunately, that seems to be highly subjective and indeed begs the whole question. Thincat (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per Slim Virgin. Seth is no more notable now than before. If this weren't a BLP, G4 might be problematic, but I think deleted BLPs have to be treated cautiously and sensitively. There needs to be a consensus for recreation (in any form) before an article deleted in these sorts of circumstances is recreated. If that isn't enshrined in policy, it should be. WJBscribe (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this comes within WP:BLP#Deletion of BLPs, Restoring deleted content: "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material." The onus was on Red Slash to establish that the material should be recreated (whether it was word for word the same, or not). WJBscribe (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But that has nothing to do with what I did. There's not a single word I recreated. I wrote that thing from scratch. I did not retain any material. I did not restore any material. I did not undelete any material. Neither WP:BLP nor WP:CSD suggest that rewriting a deleted article is grounds for a CSD. I made an article about the same subject and gave like nine links to prove notability. If you disagree that they indeed do prove it, WP:AFDEXISTS. Red Slash 23:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's implied in WP:BLP, but leaving that aside what about common sense? You knew the article had been deleted before and the deletion discussion is linked in the logs for the page, so you knew (or worse, didn't bother to check) the reasons why the article was deleted. The reasons were low notability and the wishes of the subject. A consensus of the community had decided that justified deletion. What made you think you knew better? Why not start a discussion first to seek a new consensus if you believed it had changed? That seems a better way to approach re-creating deleted biogrpahies of low notability individuals who do not want an article. You say above you knew your action would be controversial - all the more reason to seek a consensus first. WJBscribe (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your last sentence (clarification following intervening remarks "If that isn't enshrined in policy, it should be.") and maybe I agree it applies in this case. De facto there is already "delete and salt" as an AFD close (is it documented?) and this would be preferable to a retrospective dubious "G4". Thincat (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The original close did not specify that the article should be salted but probably should have done. Maybe we should made it standard that articles deleted for these sorts of reasons should be salted, to avoid good faith (if misguided) re-creation. WJBscribe (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- True story. I saw this wasn't WP:SALTed and that's what encouraged me to write it. I wouldn't have otherwise, of course. Red Slash 23:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. This article plainly wasn't speedily deletable; it's an abuse of process to argue that G4 applies in this situation, given that the article is newly-created and not simply a copy or development of the old deleted article. Moreover, it has been five years since the last AfD on this article. I don't think it's feasible to rely on an AfD from 2008 to argue that someone does not have notability in 2013. Who had heard of Justin Bieber this time in 2008? A lot can change in that time. I'd suggest restoring the article and raising an AfD to test afresh the notability arguments. It's quite possible that we will still find that the subject is only marginally notable, but we should test that proposition, not simply assume it without a proper discussion. Prioryman (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn This doesn't appear to fall under the G4 criteria at all. If you're going to go far enough to say that it does, then that means any article recreation, no matter what the content, is G4-able, which is clearly completely against the purpose of the speedy deletion criteria. SilverserenC 02:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that a bit of a stretch? The G4 summary is "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". So surely it's only covered by G4 if there's been a deletion discussion? Isn't it therefore incumbent on the potential re-creator to see what the reasons for deletion were, see if they've changed, and - if so - start a recreation discussion? In this context, WJB makes a good point above, that the reasons for deletion were "low notability and the wishes of the subject". Does that suggest that the article should only be recreated if one or both of those factors have significantly changed? Roger Davies talk 11:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Not an appropriate application of G4. And, since the deletion initially rested on an uncodified and informal practice rather than clearly enunciated policy or guideline, those insisting the practice should be maintained should carry the burden of demonstrating community consensus support. Also per SilkTork's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list at AfD - this is one of those difficult articles that hovered on the border of notability several years ago, and the bizarre combination of G4 deletions, an old DRV, and a very old AfD mean that the consensus for its existence or absence is really very vague. Given that Red Slash's recently recreated article was most commendably neutral, sourced, and concise I think it would be best to consider the article again at AfD. In these kinds of situations it's best to go over the discussion again for the avoidance of doubt - given that the recreated article is pretty harmless and miles away from an attack page that could cause real BLP issues, I feel it's best to discuss it in a situation where the community can come to a better consensus on the article and subject's notability on its merits. ~ mazca talk 14:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. First of all, while people can become more notable over time, there's no evidence of that here. Per Risker, the re-created article contained no new sources compared to the older, deleted version, suggesting that the subject's notability has not increased over time. Secondly, there seems to be at least an implicit preference on the part of the article subject in favor of deletion; such preferences are typically honored in these sorts of borderline cases.
Finally, the recent fracas over the Amanda Filipacchi BLP illustrates a serious problem: these relatively low-profile BLPs can serve as an inappropriate vector of abuse when Wikipedians are angry with an outside commentator. I'm not convinced that we currently have the resources or support to deal effectively with that possibility. While I recognize that it's generally useless on Wikipedia to appeal to common sense or pragmatism, the last point is decisive for me - we gain virtually nothing in encyclopedic value by retaining this article, while the downsides include disregarding the article subject's desire for privacy and potentially opening up a can of worms with regard to inappropriately motivated editing. MastCell Talk 17:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No vandalism or revenge-editing occurred in that recent case, despite all the uninformed "analysis" by misguided commentators in the media reacting to Filipacchi's similarly uninformed accusations, so that is not a good example. The principle that we should delete BLPs upon subject request sounds great in theory, but in practice would be an excuse for endless shenanigans. Any request should be evaluated strictly on the basis of whether such an article is suitable for inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's what I'm doing here. I'm just incorporating a few more considerations than you in deciding whether an article is "suitable for inclusion". MastCell Talk 20:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and List at AfD Given the changes in the intervening years to the individual, the article and to Wikipedia as a whole, the speedy seems unjustified and inappropriate. Let's have a broader review of the article and allow the community to decide, rather than depending on the opinion of a single admin deciding on behalf of the community. Alansohn (talk)
- Overturn and have a new discussion at AfD. We wouldn't even be considering a request for deletion by someone with a similar career but no controversy between them and WP. I continue to think that the rule permitting deletion by subject request to be wrongly used, and this is an example. In almost every instance where it's come up I've opposed it as inconsistent with NPOV. There are some extreme cases that justify having such a possibility available--I can recall only a single one since I've been here where I've participated in discussing which I considered justified. Now that we have patrolled edits as well as protection we have multiple ways to deal with improper editing to BLP articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List at AfD. With all due respect for the positions expressed most clearly by Risker and SlimVirgin, this is a situation we encounter fairly often at DRV, and it's well established that DRV does not enforce five-year-old consensuses. If a good faith editor's gone to the trouble of creating an entirely fresh article five years after the last discussion, then they deserve the basic courtesy of a fresh discussion, unless there's some desperately urgent reason to delete. Oh, sure, it might be obvious to you that this article has to be deleted, but DRV's primary role to see that the established deletion process is correctly followed. Do you think that's just process for process' sake? Then see FairProcess—we have these processes for good reasons and, unless one of the narrowly- and carefully-drawn speedy deletion criteria strictly applies, you are not empowered to disregard the processes we have.
There is no pressing reason why it's desperately urgent to remove this content, and there's a good faith desire for a fresh discussion, so to AfD it goes.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've commented with a !vote below, but wanted to echo this. This is important. We don't speedy things that don't meet our speedy criteria. Not because we follow process for process's sake, but because it is the right thing to do. We certainly want to be fair, and if this gets undeleted (which it really should) and sent to AfD, we can do things to protect Seth during that the time of the AfD (be quick on the article protection for one). Hobit (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See my defense of the speedy deletion below. The "right thing to do" should involve a certain amount of sensitivity to real people. Proposed article protection is no solution, because as demonstrated, there is no such thing as a Wikipedia promise which can be relied on - the moment attention has lapsed, it can be changed. And that comes back to the "cost-shifting" issue of making it my problem to defend against libel and defamation. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't necessarily think we should have an article about you, Seth. What I think is that we should have a discussion about whether we should have an article about you in the normal way. At that discussion, I would !vote to delete this material; I have a long track record of agreeing that marginally-notable people should have their wishes respected in this regard. But the discussion is important. Contributors who try to write good faith content must be defended by processes that protect them from these unilateral ninja-deletions, or we'll drive away these precious good faith content contributors and all we'll have left are the vandals and the discussion-page gadflies.—S Marshall T/C 00:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There should also be a safety-valve to protect living people from being dragged through discussions. That is the key reason such a deletion should be upheld barring extreme circumstances. BLP sensitivity indicates such concerns should be granted wide latitude, not described as "unilateral ninja-deletions". Otherwise, again, every little media blip could form the basis for another full-scale "discussion". Or revisiting could simply be done repeatedly as part of an attempt to wear down a target. Look at the potential imbalance here - it is essentially costless to them for a gauntlet of potshotters to line up and give me grief. But it is a wearisome burden on me (or worse) to repeatedly respond. Thus, such a potentially destructive cycle should be halted at the earliest possible opportunity, rather than done over and over again. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But there needs be a place for a discussion. And every 5 years doesn't seem too often. If there are credible new sources, it's more than fair to ask for a discussion. The speedy killed that. No one can discuss the article because no one can see it. I'm fine with handling BLPs like this differently. But deletion-by-fiat isn't the way to do it. Any solution we have must include a way that "forbidden" topics can be re-discussed. For now that means AfD. If you feel another process would be better, I'd love to hear it. But DrV is the wrong place--no one can improve the article (or a draft of the article). AfD or some variation of AfC would be fine (maybe only registered users could see it?). Hobit (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The specific question here is when is it reasonable to put someone at peril of potential repeated anonymous harassment. It doesn't matter if a Wikipedia biography starts out as the most wonderful article in the world, if it can be replaced in a moment with "Seth Finkelstein (libel) (defamation) (smear) (mudslinging)". And then maybe I need to have a "discussion", with anonymous revenge-editors claiming "Seth, how you know that (libel/defamation/smear/mudslinging) is really libel/defamation/smear/mudslinging, huh huh huh? Wikipedia is not censored! STREISAND EFFECT!!!". Bluntly, going through the risk of this ever again would be too soon. The underlying discussion is not about my marginal notability, where it should be enough under BPL policy for an administrator to simply rule it hasn't changed. The true discussion is the risk-shifting tradeoff Wikipedia makes to offload costs from itself onto the subjects of articles. That has been, and will be, debated extensively. But it does not require sending me through the grinder again. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Seth, the libel and defamation and mudslinging you mention is endemic across the internet. The closer we get to perfect freedom of speech, and the more widely people perceive themselves as anonymous online, the more people are empowered to spread gossip and lies. Anyone who's ever achieved anything very much in their life will feel it, on twitter, on email, on blogs and messageboards and over IRC: the psychotic weirdos who seem to despise them, the creepy weirdos who seem to worship them, and the scary weirdos who ferret out personal details and spread them. Ask me how I know.
I think the big lesson of the internet is caveat lector. In time, I think that internet readers will evolve not to believe what they read and it'll all diminish a bit, but in the meantime your situation on Wikipedia is the same as most other corners of the internet: content about living people is not policed by anyone except the subject. Once the subject complains there are rules and policies to protect him, but the protection isn't absolute. Wikipedia's unique only in two respects: first it purports to be an encyclopaedia, and although there's a disclaimer linked from every page the disclaimer should probably be in large bold font, front and centre on the page, that flashes; and second the discussions are open and transparent. I think it's right that individuals don't have perfect control of their own online reputation. I think it's right that you don't have veto power over your own Wikipedia article. It's right that when your article is deleted in 2007 because you're unremarkable, but you're writing interesting and relevant things about Wikipedia and online censorship in 2009, that your status as an unremarkable person can be re-evaluated. You're entitled to be vocal here about your dissatisfaction with this, and it seems to me that a good way to address your concerns is to place the draft article, and the AfD, in an unindexed space while it's going on.—S Marshall T/C 07:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's 2013, not 2009. And what a perverse disincentive there! In fact, I'm not writing much now, very much because of the overall negative expected value on my life (of which extensive bona-fide harassment of me by some Wikipedians played a part). Again - "You've achieved a few things over the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life". Sigh. Here we go. FAQ: "But anyone can say anything on the Internet". A: Wikipedia is uniquely toxic, as it instantly promotes an attack by putting it on one of the most prominent sites of the Internet, while at the same time "reputation-washing" it via the impression of "Wikipedia says ...", and further hiding the identity of the writer from any accountability. FAQ: "You're trying to control your article". A: No, I just don't want to be libeled, defamed, smeared, mudslung. A Wikipedia biography can be a weapon of harassment. Once more, a plea to the closing administrator: THIS IS WHY SPEEDY DELETION WAS RIGHT. So I do NOT have to go through this painful gauntlet yet another time, of redoing the same argument with person after person, at risk of endless attack otherwise. There is a real person behind the keyboard. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would note that he is mentioned or interviewed in sources subsequent to the page's deletion. Just a couple years ago he was actually talking to a press outlet in the context of criticizing Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list at AFD. I will !vote delete there on notability grounds, but this was clearly not a valid G4 and the article should be considered on its own merits, according to the usual policies. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC),[reply]
- Overturn and list While I can't see the article, no one has advanced the notion that this meets the G4 criteria (no one disputes this is a new article and no one seems to dispute there are new sources). Because I can't see the article, I can't tell if this would meet our criteria, especially as it's a BLP about someone who doesn't want an article on them. We do need a better process for dealing with articles like this, but for now AfD is that process. Perhaps salting the article with a clear process in place for writing a draft and proposing it at AfD? AfC would be a better place in some ways, but AfD deals with the issues involved more and is a more frequented place... Eh. Hobit (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion and salt As the subject at issue, I've been keeping my head down for fear of a backlash, but I believe the risk/reward now favors stating: I remain absolutely against having a Wikipedia biography, because of its extensive potential use as a weapon of harassment. The deletion decision (by a Wikipedia administrator, not me), was in part: "According to the BLP deletion standards, the closer of the deletion debate should take into account the wishes of the subject if the subject is on the fringe of notability. Mr. Finkelstein's concerns are very valid; a Wikipedia article is a prime target for trolls who want to anonymously defame the subject. Now that Wikipedia has become one of the highest-visited sites on the Internet, we have to take into account that things said on Wikipedia articles can and will affect the subject's life. ... These articles are about real people, not just some fictional video game character. Editors need to realize, if they haven't done so already, that Wikipedia is not a game. Biographies of living persons are not something to be taken lightly.". A speedy deletion was proper, as nothing has changed which should affect that determination. That should be the meaning of "identical" in the policy here, conceptual not literal. Otherwise, people could repeatedly be dragged through an abusive process by simply varying phrasing of the overall same basic facts. The decision here should similarly take into account that when real people are affected, there should be some protection against having to "run the gauntlet". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. As per Seth TUXLIE 14:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I should clarify what I meant above. The instance I am talking would be better described as him commenting on a story for a press outlet about Wikipedia. Another thing to note is that he has been an expert respondent in several Pew Research surveys as recently as last year.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, Pew has apparently dropped me as a respondent, as I didn't hear from them last year for the current year. No disrespect meant to them, but it's hardly a signal honor. Yes, I got quoted in an article about Wikipedia and Google, two years ago. If you're having to go to these lengths, isn't this obviously marginal notability? As I've put it: "You've achieved a few things over the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I only mention those examples because they were relatively recent and voluntary appearances in independent, reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're applying what might be a called a "fair-game" standard, which is not appropriate. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, what I am applying is that someone suggested the article should stay deleted because the reliable sources were older and I also know some people would want an indication that any later mentions are by choice. If your objection is that you don't want the page vandalized then there is no reason why we couldn't restore it with indefinite semi-protection or PC1 protection.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your phrasing "any later mentions are by choice" is exactly my point. It's implying some sort of brought-it-on-yourself responsibility for potentially endless attacks using Wikipedia as a weapon. Your other suggestion doesn't work. Once more - There is no such thing as a Wikipedia promise! You can say, we'll do X. And the moment attention shifts, someone else can say, X is no longer necessary (and it's up to you again to establish it is necessary, put in your application with supporting evidence and we'll "discuss" it, maybe). When does this stop? If the answer is "NEVER", that's exactly my problem. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know of many instances where indefinite semi-protection has been lifted without being replaced with PC1, and I do not know of any involving a BLP. Perhaps there are some, but requests for unprotection in general are extremely uncommon and rarely successful, with successful requests typically involving full-protection.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is text, let me try convey that the following should be read in a tone which reflects a life spent discovering the truth of the adage that the proper attitude to any contract is "Assume all parties drop dead tomorrow and their heirs hate each other.". YOU HAVE NO RISK. I can grant you're writing in good faith - but you might be wrong, you might be mistaken, and you cannot bind anyone. I am right now being forced to re-argue something I thought was long settled about not having a Wikipedia biography. And it seems I'm on the cusp of being put through a draining process rife with opportunities for personal abuse. It makes me supremely unconfident about any supposed assurances of protection. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - prefectly valid G4; G4 doesn't require that the page be identical, only that it be sufficiently identical that the original deletion discussion still applies. This article still unambigiously fails WP:N by a country mile. I might've preferred to run it passed AfD again, as I'm kinda conservative like that, but the outcome there would delete, and there's no value in process for process' sake. WilyD 09:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Great argument. Sadly, no non-admin can weigh in on the sources, including the author of the article, because the article is still deleted. Could you or some other admin either undelete the article or at least list all the sources used in the article? Given the previous discussions, it _seemed_ like WP:N was met by the old article. The issue was mostly subject's preferences not WP:N. If this really is a country-mile off from WP:N (no valid sources), a G4 could be quite reasonable. Hobit (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] - only the first one doesn't also appear in the previously deleted article. WilyD 14:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'm going to disagree about the WP:N thing. The EFF award is a darn clear indication of notability. Given them all, he's clearly over the bar. Is it a legit G4? It's closer than I'd been lead to believe, but no, it's not. There are new sources (the first one listed) and there are a huge number of articles written in a major publication. This isn't a G4. New sources, new significant work, a new rewrite and 5 years passing are each reasons we'd normally allow a new discussion. We've got all 4 here. I suspect this will end up deleted, but no reason has been provided that prevents us from having that one week discussion. We can use page protection liberally if really needed. Hobit (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides the perverse disincentives you're creating (the troll-magnet reward), there's a problem that's similar to "forum shopping". I'm not accusing you of the following, but as an issue, under your reasoning, someone who wants to use a Wikipedia biography to give grief to a target can repeatedly put them under that threat if 1) the target does anything which could be called a "source" 2) the target is mentioned anywhere 3) via a rewrite 4) even just after a while. Now, if the motive isn't specific personal animus, but more at wanting to do an end-run around BLP policy sensitivities because of ideological reasons, the problem gets much worse. This should have safeguards against it, for the same sorts of reasons that "forum shopping" is not permitted. Hence, there should be a "summary judgment" analog, which is being done here via G4 -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list at AfD. This was not even remotely close to a valid G4 given that it includes several sources that did not exist in 2008 which indicate that notability might have changed since then. If there are sources that were not considered in the previous deletion discussion that address or might address the reasons for deletion then G4 cannot apply; this is the case here. If there are sources which did not exist at the time of the previous discussion which might demonstrate (increased) notability then G4 cannot apply; this is also the case here. Speedy deletion criteria only apply when it is clear that a page would always be deleted at XfD, so when there are opinions expressed in good faith that deletion is not a certainty then by definition the page is not eligible for speedy deletion. When there are good faith opinions that a speedy deletion does not apply then, by definition, it does not apply. Incorrect speedy deletions actively harm Wikipedia so it is important they are not allowed to stand. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. To those seeking to overturn/list at AFD: If this article is listed at AfD, please can we userfy the article and discuss a draft that is kept out of the mainspace pending the outcome, with {{noindex}} if needed to keep it out of google etc? WJBscribe (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I'm concerned, sure, and I've already suggested it. I see no reason why it's necessary to make a public display of a discussion between Wikipedia editors.—S Marshall T/C 15:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 100% agreed. In fact I'd like to figure out where the right place is to put that and suggest it as a guideline for BLPs deleted in part due to the subject's request. Hobit (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. In retrospect (and without doubting anyone's best intentions), it would have been better for i) Red Slash to have read the history of this article and prior to recreating in mainspace brought his list of references and/or a userspace draft to DRV to debate whether there was sufficient information to overturn the previous deletion, ii) for Risker to have been more specific as to the rationale for speedy deletion and/or taken to AFD instead. But given where we are, the most important bit seems to be WilyD's list of sources above. Taking at face value that Mr Finkelstein was deemed borderline notable (and hence his wishes to not have an article were taken into account) in 2008, and that according to WilyD, the list of new sources seems to overlap the old ones except for one (which seems to be at best a passing mention), I see no reason to overturn the AFD result and therefore endorse the new article's deletion. Martinp (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I believe the article was probably rightly deleted, I would like to have a discussion about this subject under current standards. Thus, I say Overturn and relist at AFD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per MastCell and others. Andreas JN466 17:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion and salt as per MastCell, SlimVirgin and the subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - Admins don't get to play editor-in-chief of articles through CSD. Here, there was new RS, so the CSD rationale was incorrect on its face. If someone wants to change policy and SALT all deleted BLP's. Change policy. If someone wants to force all editors to seek DRV before creating articles on subjects that have been deleted. Change policy. If someone wants to substitute their editorial judgement for another editor's by administrative action of CSD, where CSD does not apply on its face. Change policy. The article was not deleted as false or defamatory or puffery. The article was sourced to RS and apparently was NPOV. Notability is a consensus process and consensus can change. But the admin here derailed the consensus process. This deletion was a supervote, without even the benefit of an AfD discussion on the current facts. The Endorse rationales are all unsupported by policy, the purpose of DRV, or common sense -- unless your common sense is that the Pedia should not have BLP's, but that is not actually common sense. It is not clear what difference it would make to userfy it and have the AfD, so I have no opinion on that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- May I re-iterate to you the part of the Wikipedia administrator statement in the AfD decision "Mr. Finkelstein's concerns are very valid; a Wikipedia article is a prime target for trolls who want to anonymously defame the subject. ... These articles are about real people, not just some fictional game character. Editors need to realize, if they haven't done so already, that Wikipedia is not a game.". Doesn't common sense indicate that a person should not be put through the wringer of the peril of an attack platform on a flimsy basis such as "there was new RS"? That potentially doing it to them again and again, while quoting "policy", is indeed treating this like a game? ("Ah, you have been quoted in this article / written this column / published that paper, etc. so we play the "Consensus Can Change" wikicard, and that's an automatic 1-week run through the Gauntlet Of Misery. You lose a turn from your life, with -1 to health from stress. We cast Diffuse Responsibility, so take no damage. Roll to see if you're cursed with the Troll Magnet."). Common sense is that BLP's should not be imposed on unwilling subjects unless they are extremely important, and the letter of that qualifier should not be used as a way of violating the spirit of the concept. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alan, Red Slash acknowledged that he knew the re-creation would be contentious: "I knew, obviously, that an article about this guy had been written before ... And I knew that the guy didn't like it because I read his articles on the Guardian's site. I knew it'd be controversial ..." [10] I think to know in advance that you're re-creating a BLP that the subject doesn't want, but to go ahead and do it anyway without DRV or checking with the deleting admin, speaks strongly in favour of endorsing the deletion. There is no new significant information in this article. The argument seems to be that Seth makes himself notable by continuing to write, which sounds as though we intend to punish him for it. The key point is that he remains of borderline notability, and when borderline-notable subjects request deletion, we lean in favour of deletion, per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Editors wanting to overturn that should be required to go to DRV, or at the very least to show the deleting admin that there's significant new material, so that it's not just one person deciding to put the subject through this again. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
