Fascism and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 10: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:55, 11 October 2008

< October 9	Deletion review archives: 2008 October	October 11 >

10 October 2008

Category:Fictional_obsessive-compulsives

This is unfortunately just the latest in a series of questionable closes by Kdbank71 and one of several closes of CfDs for which the only explanation was "The result of the discussion was: delete", even where there was opposition to the close that addressed specific justifications for why the category should be retained. Multiple attempts to obtain any explanation for any of these closes was refused. As I explained at the most egregious of these CfDs, there is ample evidence of character's being described -- and defined -- as Obsessive-compulsive in reliable sources, which addresses the nominator's justification for the deletion, as well as all of the subsequent "per noms". The article "TV cop fights crime, own tics: Shalhoub is outstanding as obsessive-compulsive S.F. officer" describes Adrian Monk by his well-known defining characteristic. "Actor Tony Randall, 84, 'Odd Couple' neatnik" describes Randall as achieving his "... most enduring fame on television as Felix Unger, the obsessive-compulsive neat-freak photographer..." Frasier character Niles Crane is "diagnosed" by a professional interviewed by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as having OCD (see "Local professionals weigh in on 'Frasier'"). The article "Desperate measures", labels Desperate Housewives character Bree Van de Kamp as fitting in this category, noting "Sure, Bree is obsessive-compulsive." These are just a handful of the reliable and verifiable independent sources that I found in a brief search that are defining the characters included in this category as "Obsessive-compulsive". Thousands of other sources are available to demonstrate that this is a defining characteristic and to place these articles so listed in this category. It is likely that there's cleanup necessary for specific entries in this category that do not have any sources available to support the claim, but that is never an excuse for deleting an entire category. No original research is needed to come to the conclusion that this is a defining characteristic that belongs as a category. As the closing admin has ignored a clear argument supporting the retention of this category, has already started deleting the category despite his own request to take this to DRV, and as no policy argument was offered in the close despite multiple requests, this close is out of Wikipedia process and should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. Everyone else participating in the CFD thought this category was typically non-defining and that inclusion depended upon original research, which are valid grounds for deleting a category; that Alansohn still disagrees with those arguments does not provide proper DRV grounds for overturning. Further, the sources he cites above do not prove his position, but instead illustrate the widespread colloquial usage of "obsessive-compulsive" to describe neat-freak personality types rather than to exclusively identify clinically diagnosed psychiatric disorders. Vague character traits, whose significance really depends upon intra-fiction comparisons (such as between Felix and Oscar in The Odd Couple) make a poor basis for categorization. Note also that the same category for real people was previously deleted as non-defining; closing as delete the same category for fictional characters could hardly be considered unreasonable. As a closing note, it's regrettable that Alansohn has made this personal by attacking the closer with hyperbolic rhetoric, rather than just explaining why he thought this CFD should be overturned. That the closer did not elaborate upon his close is not only consistent with applicable deletion policy, but also unnecessary in a straightforward CFD such as this one. Postdlf (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a "clinically diagnosed psychiatric disorder", this is a defining characteristic of many fictional characters used as a frequent device in print, television and movies. This is not a trait that a real-life person happens to have, it is a characteristic that has been explicitly and deliberately assigned by the fictional work's creator to define the character, and both casual viewers and the media at large have no problem in recognizing this trait and establishing it as defining, as for Adrian Monk, Felix Unger and other fictional characters. If closing a CfD in which the only justification offered is WP:OR, and multiple reliable, verifiable and independent sources for multiple characters demonstrating that the trait of being described as Obsessive-compulsive is defining and supported for individual characters can be simply ignored with a sniff and a wave of the hand, we have a real problem with the entire CfD system, not just this one out-of-process close. "Everyone else participating in the CFD thought this category was typically non-defining and that inclusion depended upon original research" ignores the multiple sources offered in rebuttal and seems to be defining consensus as a vote-counting exercise. Alansohn (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Overturn deletionExcellent category for categorizing fictional characters. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Here's what is there now Category:People diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder and Category:Compulsive hoarding. Would it be that hard to rename the category to something like Category:Fictional people diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder? -- Suntag ☼ 21:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As helpful as the precedent is for retaining the roughly corresponding fictional category, it's not clear that the fictional "disease" is a perfect analog of the real-world one. Nor is there any formal process by which fictional characters can be diagnosed as having obsessive-compulsive disorder. The best way to handle this fictional category is through the kinds of reliable and verifiable independent sources that have already been provided describing the character and referencing the character trait for the particular character. Alansohn (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. I see no reason to establish a "fictional" category for an existing real life category simply to differentiate it as fictional. If a viewer of an article wishes to see other examples of the content, they can receive redirection based on a real life category. If the fictional character can not be represented by the real life category for such a disorder as this, then they should not be characterized as such whether fictitious or not.--JavierMC 21:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Relist. Consensus was not clear, and the close was woefully inadequate with respect to an explanation. This should not be CfD2. Closing explanations should be complete without a need for a DRV to comprehend them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Endorse - DRV isn't CfD part deux. That said, I'm not opposed to a relisting. (Though I'm not sure what the purpose of it would be except for User:Alansohn to have another opportunity for Drama. Yes, I'm losing my good faith for his edits, especially per evidence here, and his harassment of Kbdank71 on Kbdank's talkpage - which apparently has led to a block.) - jc37 23:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The image is a low-res picture of a book cover. This was used to illustrate an article which discussed the book and its author, which is fair use. I spent some time explaining this on the talk page when the image was tagged but the deleting admin did not seem to read this as the deletion log indicates that he was deleting several images per minute and didn't skip a beat when he came to this one. I contacted him. His response was perfunctory and he has since been inactive. The thread has now scrolled off his talk page and so here we are. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use can be used to justify using the book cover in an article about the book, but not in an article about the author of the book. Endorse deletion. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC).

Overturn/List at IfD as per reasonable request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Eh. You can list it at IfD but it will probably be deleted there, as User:NurseryRhyme is correct, the FU exemption is for articles about the book, not the author. If the book is never going to be notable you could probably write some specific FU rationale tailored to that page, but just saying, it might very well be deleted at IfD. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Seth Finkelstein

The article appears as a red link in my article Is Google Making Us Stupid? and so it just makes sense to resurrect this article (which I read in some log was actually quite well referenced). Finkelstein is somewhat important. Notable enough, I say. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure some helpful soul will incorporate this prettily into the drvlinks template above, but the previous discussions here are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd), and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 30. My opinion is endorse deletion per the latter two, particularly Xoloz's insightful close of the deletion review. Ignoring his own articles in The Guardian (and by long consensus one's own articles don't make a journalist notable) and extraneous news hits for another guy with the same name there is no significant coverage since the last DRV, and no reasons to ignore it given by the nominator. We made the right decision here the first time; let's let this one lie. Chick Bowen 05:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems a pity. Could I look at the article, anyhow?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Could it be userified on my talk page or something? I would like to see what was previously written about Seth Finkelstein.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Better yet, why is Wikipedia being so difficult about this particular article? Just restore it. Clearly it is bugging people that it isn't around. I am feeling quite self-righteous and may have to raise a storm in the form of an indefinite tornado to rampage against all who wish to keep this article down. It must rise up again! Leave behind your former silliness and endorse an overturn! Thank you. Good day.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Speedy close no process issues raised, no new information presented (substantive of otherwise), just not liking or disagreeing with the outcome is not a DRV matter. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Didn't I explain that it is a red link in an article I recently wrote so therefore shouldn't this article be written? Yet I have discovered that it was written... and has had a vigorous AfD and DRV debate. It seems like eventually you have to give in, right? Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information but in this case they seem to be hiding the information behind some kind of deletion server. I would like to read the article (as would many others I'm guessing) so let's restore it, please. Thank you.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And do our deletion criteria or processes make special account for red links? (Our inclusion criteria specifically exclude internal links from wikipedia.) Can I create a redlink to anything I want very easily, should we provide an end run around every deletion debate just by creating a redlink to something? The existance of a redlink is irrelevant. As to the rest of your statement that enforces the view that you merely disagree with the deletion outcome, something DRV isn't for. Your statement that "It seems like eventually you have to give in, right?" is seriously towards gaming the system. "Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information" please see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so no merely being "information" is not sufficient --82.7.39.174 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe Finkelstein is notable. He has done a lot of high exposure work, and has received awards for it. Also, these red links are just more proof that he is notable. How many red links does it take for someone to realize, hmm.... it is not that Finkelstein is notable on Wikipedia but in fact notable in real life. Ummm... Wake up.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"I'm sorry, but I believe Finkelstein is notable." - yes we got that, you disagree with the outcome of the debates, as already above, not what DRV is for. "these red links are just more proof that he is notable" well John Zebedde Fred Zebedde no idea if they are real people but the prescence of the red links is no proof of notability. "How many red links does it take for someone to realize" read links are irrelevant - read the notability guidelines no where does the amount of red links on wikipedia count for anything. It isn't for wikipedia editors to decide based on creaton of red links (how about Bert Zebedde) the general notability is defined elsewhere. Again the consensus so far is that he doesn't meet the inclusion criteria, and again this is just you disagreeing with that debate (and creating a red link to "prove" something, hey I disagree with the deletion of X, I'll work in a red link somewhere, end run around the deletion debate?). Read what WP:DRV is actually for it isn't that, if you have some significant new material which overcomes the issues of the deletion debates then present it, and I'll repeat again create as many red links as you like, the inclusion criteria couldn't care less about them. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

- There is so much wrong with the above I don't know where to start. It is comments like this that make it so difficult for people like me to defend the rights of IPs to edit. Seth is linked in mainspace, repeatedly. That should be obviously different from you constructing random names and linking them. Moreover, the issue at hand is not whether Seth passes the basic notability criterion since everyone agrees that he does. The issue is whether he is of borderline notability. Since there's no rigorous definition of what constitutes borderline notability (See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP) bringing up issues like how often Seth is linked to in mainspace are perfectly reasonable as possible measures of his notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  - Err so if I created an account and made the same comments you'd not have an issue? What has editing as an IP got to do with this? Sorry you dislike the creation of random names, the point was simple and still is the consensus wrapped up in the notability guidelines doesn't consider them important, if you want to change that then there are far better places to discuss that and change the guidelines than here. The bottom line still is this review isn't based on any new information other than the creation of more internal links within wikipedia and the requester believing the original outcome to be incorrect. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    - If you had an account I would have likely found another method of expressing my frustration with your remark. The fact that you were an anon is additional frustration precisely because I'm a strong proponent of allowing anons to comment. Now, it appears you didn't address the issue at hand. So let's be clear: Seth is notable. Everyone agrees to that. The question is not how to define notability. The question is how to define "borderline notability." It is perfectly reasonable that valid red links in mainspace are one measure that might could go into the weighing. If you don't see the difference between that are your creation on a talk page of random names then I don't have much to say to you and I doubt almost anyone else will either. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I've userfied it to User:Manhattan Samurai/Seth Finkelstein. I think this can be closed now. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion, restore original to article space, and delete everything. The community has previously decided to honor the subject's request to not have an article, and nominator here has given us no reason to overturn the prior consensus. More generally, this was not an article that should have been userfied - it should at most have been emailed to the requestor. GRBerry 13:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Close - The last DRV was clear as to what was needed to restore this article. Referring to the 2007 December 30 DRV, the DRV closer wrote:
The consensus below simply does not favor restoration of this article. The question of the subject's "borderline notability" is one that may be reopened should additional sources come to light, but there is no agreement below that the sources presented refute the "borderline notability" conclusion reached at AfD. In contrast to some other BLP deletions (where people must make presumptions on the subject's behalf) this DRV is visited by the gentleman himself, forcefully arguing for his own anonymity. It is a good thing for editors to remain vigilant, and concerned with striking a "balance of interests" in applying WP:BLP. The subject does not own the article bearing his name, and never exercises an absolute veto over its existence. Any "courtesy deletion" of a "borderline notable" person should be taken with utmost care and consideration, weighing both the privacy rights of the individual and the encyclopedia's duty to chronicle every notable truth. The consensus below is that, in this case, due consideration was given, and the right result reached.

Basically, a DRV requesting to recreate this topic as an article needs to include (1) a list of additional sources not in the deleted article and (2) a statement addressing the "balance of interests" and why that balance favors recreate this topic as an article. Feel free to post a new DRV meeting these requirements. -- Suntag ☼ 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine, it just looks a little strange being the only red link in an article I'm working on. But I see the writer (or whatever he is, because I don't really know, which is why I would've liked to read the article) has actually lobbied to have his article deleted.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

comment Not endorsing at all on this article since I still disagree strongly with the original deletion. I will however note that I have been keeping careful track of Seth's appearances in the media since the deletion and none of them are significant enough for me to be able to honestly argue that the situation has changed in that regard. We may wish to reconsider the previous DRV and see if the consensus is that same as it was previously. Simply endorsing deletion due to a previous consensus is less than helpful. I've incidentally taken the liberty of letting Seth know about this discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we should do that. Isn't it crazy that we are not allowed to cover Seth Finkelstein? It is censorship... and really, Finkelstein will just have to get used to the fact that he has a Wikipedia article. We are now in the dark about who Finkelstein is and what he has been doing, yet he continues to write about important issues. I believe Finkelstein is afraid that we may peg his positions on certain issues, but frankly, we have a right to that knowledge. And now he is tangentially involved in a discussion about the magazine article Is Google Making Us Stupid? where knowing something about his positions might be useful, but still there is a refusal to create an article about him. Why are we biting this bullet?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I have to say, this is an outrage! I'm calm but this article is pretty interesting, as is Mr. Finkelstein, and what more, we've been denied continued improvements to his biography. Shouldn't we discuss this again? He's won awards and done some work as an activist. Is he mainly an activist?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  - Finkelstein has done a variety of things. He first came to wide attention for his work with censorware. He got an EFF Pioneer award for that work. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    - There is a web site <http://stalkedbyseth.com/> that is potentially wrongheaded (I'll assume wrongheaded) but for controversial people like Mr. Finkelstein it makes sense to have a Wikipedia article. That way we can come to a consensus on what is a NPOV on him. I want to be able to read in a Wikipedia context about this "stalked by seth" silliness. We really need this article. I like the fact that most often Wikipedia will sort out this kind of nuttiness for you, either on the talk pages or in the edit summary history. Please, overturn this deletion.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
      - The presence of a website devoted to attacking Seth has little bearing on his notability. Do you think this makes me notable? Seth's disputes with a variety of notable people are nearly internet legends but they have no reliable sources talking about those disputes. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
        Sigh... it appears yet another Wiki-conspiracy is ongoing. Yet all I want is to have the red link turn blue in my article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
        There's no wiki-conspiracy here just a lot of history that you might not be aware of. Seth was one of the test cases for courtesy deletion of borderline notable people. Seth had pushed for the deletion of his article for a long time before this finally occurred. I suspect that many people simply don't want an article on the subject at this time because the drama factor would be too high. As far as I can tell if we had someone of Seth's level of notability who was not Seth who requested deletion we would say no. This isn't an example of a "Wiki-conspiracy" just that Wikipedians are humans. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
        Sigh... It appears that Wikipedia is being censored. Why else would Seth Finkelstein be exempt from having an article? You can't pick or choose who is written about at Wikipedia. This reference source should be censorship free. I feel like I'm in China. A definite Wiki-conspiracy is ongoing here.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... This appears to be another one of those cases in which Wikipedia consensus will fail to see reason on a very reasonable request.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
It appears to me that Seth Finkelstein has bullied Wikipedia into deleting his article, and is probably quite proud of this feat. It would be nice to reverse it. If you noticed all the other critics in the article on "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" have their own Wiki articles. He is a regular critic from what I can tell, one of some note, having recently written an article titled "Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Wales says". I think Wikipedia should reverse the cowardly deletion of this article. Clearly Finkelstein raises important issues and we have a right to know where he stands. Do we have to start a separate Website to deal with this kind of material involving critics of Wikipedia?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion as nominator on the successful deletion request. Manhattan Samurai, I respect your reasons for wishing a review. And it's been nearly a year since the last one; that's not too soon to ask. If the subject had no objection to an article then I would wholeheartedly endorse your proposal. He has, however, a very articulate and repeated objection to it. Now although the site guidelines offer no specific threshold for borderline notability, I advocate what I call a 'dead trees standard'--which means I offer courtesy deletion nominations upon request for any individual who's the subject of a Wikipedia biography and wants off, so long as the person isn't notable enough to have an article in a reliable paper-and-ink encyclopedia (including specialty encyclopedias). It costs us little in terms of completeness to extend this courtesy and earns substantial goodwill. Durova^Charge! 22:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
That is the most meaningless argument brought up here so far. Let's just throw out your "dead trees standard" which means nothing and sounds Orwellian, and agree that Seth Finkelstein is notable (what were his article's page hits before deletion)? Mr. Finkelstein routinely raises issues of note and yet we can't summarize those issues in his article? Cowardly. The criteria of paper-and-ink encyclopedias are of absolutely no consequence in this DRV. Finkelstein's opinion of Wikipedia is also of no consequence in this DRV. His notability is and that is quite easy to establish. I have yet to see any valid reason not to have an article on Seth Finkelstein.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- It isn't meaningless. It is a possible workable standard for testing whether we should include specific individuals who request their deletion. (I've objected extensively to this standard as unworkable for a variety of reasons, but it does have the advantage of being fairly objective). But it isn't meaningless or Orwellian and there seem to be a fair number of editors who agree with it. As far as I can tell, the repeated keeps for Don Murphy suggest that the general consensus for where borderline notability is is a bit lower than what this generally encompasses. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  - How many very notable critics of the web are included in specialty encyclopedias, or any type of encyclopedia? Isn't that a little ridiculous? I mean how many encyclopedias have articles on Jimbo Wales? or Larry Sanger? or several of the other critics who are mentioned in the article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?".Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    - Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Jimbo was in some dead tree sources (there are a surprisingly large number of dead tree encyclopedias about specialized subject), but to some extent you are preaching to the choir. But whether a standard is a bad standard is distinct from where it is meaningless. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
      - Thank you very much, Joshua, for defending my reasoning in spite of your different conclusion. Manhattan Samurai, Wikipedia has had a small but persistent problem with individuals who don't want an article about themselves. And in fairness to these people, there's a legitimate case to be made on their behalf: a biography article on an open edit website might be abused tactically by these people's competitors when they seek new professional opportunities. A Wikipedia article is often the first result on a Google search and nearly always in the first page. Since we have a conflict of interest guideline asking people to exercise restraint about editing subjects that pertain to themselves, and (being volunteer-run) don't always keep up with these problems as well as we ought, I've thought it was fair to offer a reasonable deletion upon request. 'Dead trees' isn't an ideal standard--its chief advantage is that it's verifiable. But it's my abiding belief that ethical decisions where good people disagree belong in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences. You and I will walk away from this discussion with little lost or gained either way; Mr. Finkelstein's professional prospects may be affected. His wishes are clear, and my ethical conclusion is to honor them. Your conclusion and Joshua's may differ, but please join him in respect for the conscientious decision behind it. Durova^Charge! 22:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
        I think you are wrong. There are already certain individuals (stalkedbyseth.com) who are attempting to defame Seth Finkelsten. A Wikipedia article about Mr. Finkelstein is unlikely to do that. It would look at the various positions he has taken on certain issues to inform the public. Your argument is a very bad one, considering Seth Finkelstein routinely publishes highly controversial articles, and has most definitely brought some attention to himself. The absence of a Wikipedia article is not going to create some sort of blank slate on his career, but will in fact bring it into focus. I don't think Finkelstein has anything to hide, and in fact, has a lot to be proud of. Also, we (public) have the right to be informed and write a Wiki article about Seth Finkelstein.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
        Manhattan Samruai, you appear to be unfamiliar with my offsite publications on this subject (I won't link to them but they're pretty easy to Google). Yes, unfortunately, people have come to Wikipedia and misused the site's open edit features with an intent to do unmerited harm to the subject's reputation. This has happened with United States congressional representatives (whom we can't very well delete) and we haven't kept on top of it. Given that we aren't on the ball with the essential biographies, I think it's only right and proper that we honor the subject's wishes in requests to delete the nonessential ones. You may disagree of course, yet please respect that my reasoning has some actual basis. And...um...I'm 'Ms. Durova'. Durova^Charge! 23:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
        It sounds to me like you are saying Wikipedia is no longer capable of having articles because they are risky to the subjects? Again, I see no argument here put forward that is a legitimate reason for keeping the Finkelstein article deleted.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
New information Look at all these recent articles Seth Finkelstein has written about hot-button topics: "How will Wikia cope when the workers all quit the plantation?", "Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Wales says", "Orwell was right: security by obscurity = ignorance is strength", and "Don't just blame the internet for polarised viewpoints". Why again are we not allowed to have some sort of ongoing history/biography of Finkelstein's positions on various issues? Very Orwellian of Wikipedia which usually counters any Orwellian moves on the part of the world. We need this article on Finkelstein.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh. The presence of new articles is a valid point. But could we stop with the cries of Orwellianism? They don't help matters (JoshuaZ's modification of Godwin's Law, as a DRV progresses the probability of a 1984 reference approaches 1). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  - I have to wonder if maybe Wikipedia doesn't want to have an article on Seth Finkelstein because of his opinions against Wikipedia and Wikia. There is a lot of weirdness surrounding this deletion of the Finkelstein article.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    - Heh, when I nominated Angela Beesley's bio for deletion people accused me of having done it because of her WP ties. Now the pendulum has swung so far we get accusations that Seth's bio was deleted for the opposite cause, even though they both went up with the same rationale. Did WP:ABF become policy? Durova^Charge! 00:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
      - I'm assuming cowardice on this one. I'm hearing a lot of nothing, a lot of convoluted thinking, and no one addressing the fact that Seth Finkelstein is notable, and that the article about him was well sourced, and how knowing a Wiki article's worth about him is a worthwhile use of server space. No one is addressing that. So maybe I should start assuming bad faith too.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    - Doubtful, I mean that may be part of it for some people but we have articles about a variety of critics. They haven't requested deletion or anything like that though. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Endorse but allow recreation if suitable sources are provided. A redlink doesn't justify an article - the redlink can be removed. If an article is justified, there will be reputable secondary sources about the subject. Articles by the subject do not meet our criteria. If suitable sources can be found (reputable commentary about the subject), then a fresh article should be created, as it sounds like the original wasn't based on suitable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- You know, it might help just a tad if you were to research matters a bit before commenting on them. There was never a dearth of sources. Finkelstein's notability was clear. The article was deleted because he requested it together with the notion that biographies which were of "borderline notability" should be deleted when the individual in question requested it. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Helllloooooo??? Have you read User:Manhattan_Samurai/Seth_Finkelstein. There are secondary sources. This is tiring. How about we work together to make this article suitable rather than talking abstractly about some potential writing we might do. Just restore the article and then we'll work to bring it up to snuff.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion Manhattan Samurai. Stop badgering people about this. I'm not sure if this is some elaborate performance art or if you feel this is the right way to engage in a discussion of these issues but it is borderline unacceptable. Protonk (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)