Content deleted Content added
→Matt Sanchez: ask jimbo? |
Horologium (talk | contribs) →Matt Sanchez: Strong Delete this bloodbath and refocus. |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
*'''Keep''': Although I have not edited this article, I agree with everyone else: as long as we are being careful about BLP issues, and notability is being satisfied, thats all we need to care about. If [[Britney Spears]] wanted her article deleted too, we wouldnt do that as well. This kind of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=184024756 legal threat] from a notable person is also bullying of the highest kind by the way. Wikipedia should not bow down to such requests. Threatening legal action has always been a big no no on this site. If Wikipedia deletes this article than it means they did it because of a legal threat. Maybe Jimbo should be asked about this. --[[User:Matt57|Matt57]] <sup>([[User_talk:Matt57|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Matt57|contribs]])</sup> 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''': Although I have not edited this article, I agree with everyone else: as long as we are being careful about BLP issues, and notability is being satisfied, thats all we need to care about. If [[Britney Spears]] wanted her article deleted too, we wouldnt do that as well. This kind of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=184024756 legal threat] from a notable person is also bullying of the highest kind by the way. Wikipedia should not bow down to such requests. Threatening legal action has always been a big no no on this site. If Wikipedia deletes this article than it means they did it because of a legal threat. Maybe Jimbo should be asked about this. --[[User:Matt57|Matt57]] <sup>([[User_talk:Matt57|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Matt57|contribs]])</sup> 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' given the number of reliable sources cited in the article. Article can be protected if necessary given BLP concerns. [[User:Capitalistroadster|Capitalistroadster]] ([[User talk:Capitalistroadster|talk]]) 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' given the number of reliable sources cited in the article. Article can be protected if necessary given BLP concerns. [[User:Capitalistroadster|Capitalistroadster]] ([[User talk:Capitalistroadster|talk]]) 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Strong Delete''' and create a protected redirect to ''Matt Sanchez Controversy'' or a similar title, a new article confined to the controversy in which he was engulfed when his past was revealed by gay activists to discredit him. There is not enough reliably sourced information beyond the outing (critics who have edited Wikipedia have consistently deprecated references to his activities as an embedded journalist) and his three-year career as a porn actor produced no noteworthy films (not a single film in his filmography has a Wikipedia article). This article is by far the most contentious article in which I have been involved, and after informal mediation, an RFC, and an Arbcom case, there still seems to be little hope of resolving some of the core issues behind this article. Deleting it and starting over (with neither Sanchez nor the publisher of an attack site dedicated to personally destroying Sanchez editing on Wikipedia—they are both indefinitely blocked) with a different focus (an incident, rather than a half-assed biography) will do much to ratchet down the hostility level on the project. The level of hatred this article has engendered approaches the level of The Troubles and 9/11 conspiracy theory articles, and is not far behind the Armenia/Azerbaijan flailex. Wikipedia is not a battleground, but this article and its 12 pages of talk archives have been. '''[[User:Horologium|<font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium</font>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Horologium|(talk)]]</small> 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:44, 14 January 2008
Matt Sanchez
AfDs for this article:
- Matt Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Matt Sanchez is a milblogger, journalist, and war blogger. In the course of a pending arbitration involving the subject directly as a Wikipedia editor, he request the article be deleted. That is detailed here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop#Removal request As User:Coredesat said on the RFAR page this looks like the Daniel Brandt, Seth Finkelstein, and Angela Beesley articles. A possibly notable person, who wants his biography removed. Per BLP, I'm nominating this for delete. Lawrence Cohen 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Lawrence Cohen 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability has been established. We shouldn't delete biographies just because someone has gotten tired of playing games with Wikipedia - or rather decides to play a new game. Aleta (Sing) 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- We should keep this article as for current policy regarding notability. I fear notability has been establish using reliable sources and independent coverage and is clear. Policy won't allow our deletion here. I do sympathize with the subject. M-ercury at 21:28, January 13, 2008
- Delete without prejudice to recreation as a neutral stub. Per WP:BLP, the subject's wishes can be taken into account when making decisions related to the article. Notability, while sourced in the article, is fairly marginal overall. We should honor the subject's wishes and delete the article, although if a neutral stub can be written (the history should be left deleted due to attempts to insert BLP violations), it can be recreated. --Coredesat 21:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you show marginal notability? M-ercury at 21:59, January 13, 2008
- Keep - Notabilility has been established in multiple, non-trivial references. Not only to his porn career which by itself is notable, but in addition to his award from CPAC which isn't quite very notable, to his protest at Columbia, to his blogging, to the *strenuous* attempts by certain Wikipedians to protect him from himself. It's quite possible that the last item by itself would establish notability here, in a belly-button-gazing article. By the way his appearance on Hannity & Colmes ? That's awfully notable. Wjhonson (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It's times like these where I really wish Wikipedia had a "no double jeopardy!" rule. The whole "let's list it at AFD until we get the result we want" thing can get very tiring. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 22:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per above arguements about the subject's notability. Please note that the BLP deletion standards have been changed to state that deletion should be considered if the request is reasonable, and it doesn't look as though this request is. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep You don't edit an article about you yourself and fight to have all the bad things removed, and then when the heat is on, decide you want it gone altogether. Additionally, no action should be taken on this article while a related Abrcom case is going on. I imagine someone else would recreate it as a general article just like every other porn star, gay or straight, on Wikipedia because that's where his notability ultimately lies. ALLSTARecho 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, also per WP:NOT#Not a battleground, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. This particular biography is a BLP hornet's nest and in a year of trying Wikipedia has been unable to establish any stable neutral version and the talk page long since degenerated into a venue for personal attacks. The subject is the target of a hate site and is proving himself unable to adapt to Wikipedia site standards. Overall value to encyclopedic completeness: minimal. Overall drain on volunteer time: substantial. DurovaCharge! 22:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is no benefit to the project to constantly describe criticism sites as "hate" sites. Pwok's site grew out of the constant conflicts about this article, and especially from the unnecesarily aggressive attempt to allow Sanchez to have his way at the expense of the project. Wjhonson (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also of note: Wjhonson has made 71 edits to this page and 51 edits to its talk.[1] Aleta has made 121 edits to this article's talk.[2] Allstarecho has made 29 edits to this article's talk.[3] After 21 edits of my own to this article's talk (I answered a content RFC three months ago and followed up in attempts to resolve the dispute), I really don't see any other workable solution than deletion. And personally, I'd prefer to keep this salted. DurovaCharge! 22:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Aleta (Sing) 22:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability established and chock full of reliable sources. While I sympathize with the subject's desire to bury his past, he is notable for both his acting career and what he has been doing in the political field. And for the record, I have made no edits to the article and perhaps two to the talk page. Jeffpw (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete. The subject is of marginal notability, and has personally requested that we delete the article. We should honor his request. Per WP:BLP: "Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid." I've done extensive research on the Sanchez situation, and have experienced firsthand the battles on the article's talkpage. The article has been a magnet for SPA editors who are using it as a soapbox and Battleground, and as a tool with which to harass Sanchez, who has now threatened legal action. Further, some of the "Keep" comments above are from some of these same SPAs, so I recommend that the closing admin here take a look at contribution history when making their decision. To be clear: Though Sanchez does pass WP:BIO, he does it in a marginal fashion. He is not such a notable individual that we have to have an article on him. He was in a handful of porn videos, and has been in the news a few times, but per WP:BLP1E, that doesn't mean he's majorly notable. There has never been a third-party biography on him, in any medium. Further, deleting this article will help to de-escalate this dispute. Months of time have been wasted on the battles at the Matt Sanchez article, and the amount of attacks and harassment and speculative defamation that have taken place at the article's talkpage is simply staggering. The subject just wants to be done with it, and has requested that we delete the article, so let's just honor that and move on. --Elonka 00:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Elonka, I think you need to go back and look at the contributions history of everyone above you because not one of them is a SPA user so saying some of the "Keep" comments above are from some of these same SPAs is false. Every single person above you has significant contribution history to other articles and talk pages. Secondly, 41 porn videos is hardly a handful of porn videos. ALLSTARecho 00:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- And anyone who knows the first thing about that industry knows how much footage gets reused. Per the dead trees standard I proposed when I nominated the Seth Finkelstein, Daniel Brandt, and Rand Fishkin biographies for deletion, no paper and ink encyclopedia is likely to carry an article about Matt Sanchez. Not even an encyclopedia of porn. If you can find one, I'll change my vote. Otherwise this page is more trouble than it's worth. DurovaCharge! 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you link the standard? M-ercury at 01:06, January 14, 2008
- Mercury, I explained it in every courtesy BLP deletion I've proposed. Marginal notability is nearly meaningless because it means too many different things to different people. So I sought something that's confirmable and not prone to slippery slope arguments. DurovaCharge! 01:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you link the standard? M-ercury at 01:06, January 14, 2008
- And anyone who knows the first thing about that industry knows how much footage gets reused. Per the dead trees standard I proposed when I nominated the Seth Finkelstein, Daniel Brandt, and Rand Fishkin biographies for deletion, no paper and ink encyclopedia is likely to carry an article about Matt Sanchez. Not even an encyclopedia of porn. If you can find one, I'll change my vote. Otherwise this page is more trouble than it's worth. DurovaCharge! 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Elonka, I think you need to go back and look at the contributions history of everyone above you because not one of them is a SPA user so saying some of the "Keep" comments above are from some of these same SPAs is false. Every single person above you has significant contribution history to other articles and talk pages. Secondly, 41 porn videos is hardly a handful of porn videos. ALLSTARecho 00:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was unfamiliar with the phrase, but I read to quick and now I realize that I can just go to those AFD's to understand it. Pardon the misunderstanding. Regards, M-ercury at 01:31, January 14, 2008
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Aleta (Sing) 01:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Aleta -- notability is clear, reliable sources abound, and the individual's desire not to be fully covered here shouldn't outweigh our duty to write a complete encyclopedia. And, for the record, I've never edited anything related to this individual. Ashdog137 (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per sources. Epbr123 (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Aleta (Sing) 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: Although I have not edited this article, I agree with everyone else: as long as we are being careful about BLP issues, and notability is being satisfied, thats all we need to care about. If Britney Spears wanted her article deleted too, we wouldnt do that as well. This kind of legal threat from a notable person is also bullying of the highest kind by the way. Wikipedia should not bow down to such requests. Threatening legal action has always been a big no no on this site. If Wikipedia deletes this article than it means they did it because of a legal threat. Maybe Jimbo should be asked about this. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep given the number of reliable sources cited in the article. Article can be protected if necessary given BLP concerns. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete and create a protected redirect to Matt Sanchez Controversy or a similar title, a new article confined to the controversy in which he was engulfed when his past was revealed by gay activists to discredit him. There is not enough reliably sourced information beyond the outing (critics who have edited Wikipedia have consistently deprecated references to his activities as an embedded journalist) and his three-year career as a porn actor produced no noteworthy films (not a single film in his filmography has a Wikipedia article). This article is by far the most contentious article in which I have been involved, and after informal mediation, an RFC, and an Arbcom case, there still seems to be little hope of resolving some of the core issues behind this article. Deleting it and starting over (with neither Sanchez nor the publisher of an attack site dedicated to personally destroying Sanchez editing on Wikipedia—they are both indefinitely blocked) with a different focus (an incident, rather than a half-assed biography) will do much to ratchet down the hostility level on the project. The level of hatred this article has engendered approaches the level of The Troubles and 9/11 conspiracy theory articles, and is not far behind the Armenia/Azerbaijan flailex. Wikipedia is not a battleground, but this article and its 12 pages of talk archives have been. Horologium (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)