Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce McMahan

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn since article has been improved to include more sources which assert notability for sure. Flyingtoaster1337 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce McMahan

Bruce McMahan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject is only borderline notable per WP:BIO. He is often mentioned in the news but apparently only because of alleged improper sexual relationships (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). Since the subject or his publicist has been blanking most of the article and he's only notable due to a single incident, this entry should be deleted. I disagree with the talk page reasoning that "Bruce McMahan is notable on account of wealth combined with the fact that the legal conflict between him and his daughter has made him a public figure" - there aren't that few multimillionaires who are more notable than him. (Google "Bruce McMahan": [4]) Flyingtoaster1337 21:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

He's clearly notable. He's 1) "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" and 2) "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated."

You argue that "Since the subject or his publicist has been blanking most of the article and he's only notable due to a single incident, this entry should be deleted." That's a poor justification for deletion. It shouldn't matter whether an individual wants the information on Wikipedia or not. Exeunt 22:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Note from Type Five:

I agree with Flying Toaster and the Wiki editor who removed this entry last round. Perhaps subject is clearly notable in the mind of poster Exeunt because he is a related party to dispute in question and trying to do damage. How does he know about a PR firm, how was he contacted via email, how is that he refers to the damage to this person's reputation as justifiable in user talk. If this is indeed notable, then Wikipedia should list all wealthy people, and all people who have been accused of sexual impropriety, include all tabloid newspaper and televison content on this database. In my humble opinion, poster is biased with an agenda, not a true contributor to Wikipedia. I am the one who in a good faith edit accidentally blanked the article which I corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TypeFive (talk • contribs).

So you're telling me you're a neutral contributor with no ties to Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif LLP who just happened to blank the page for the third time after it was restored? It's disingenuous (very lawyer-like!) to accuse me of being someone with an axe to grind with McMahan; I frequently edit Wikipedia, have no agenda other than improving this project and protecting it from private interests, and I have the advantage of not being a sock puppet and lawyer hired by Mr. McMahan to protect his image.

Oh, and the funny thing about the subjects of tabloid stories--they're notable. What's true and notable about their lives would make it into a good Wikipedia article about them. Exeunt 22:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Anything with this much controversy must be notable. The article seems to be suffering from edit wars by interested parties. At this point we have one solid reference, but should have more. The corporate bio is good background, but not sufficient to establish notability. --Kevin Murray 22:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Be careful what you are accusing people of TypeFive, it is ironic to accuse someone of being 'not a true contributor to Wikipedia', and then fill your comment with poor logic, and not sign your post correctly. As for the article in question- Exeunt, you say that there is much coverage, do you think you could link to/cite some more directly? As for the matter of whether people WANT the information on Wikipedia, if information is properly sourced and relevent, removing it constitutes vandalism. It is not for the subject of the article to decide what is in it, otherwise all murderers would demand that the articles on them ommitted the fact that they had killed somebody. J Milburn 22:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I have only just noticed the the nominator provided. This person is notable according to Wikipedia's rules, and the nominator seems to have inadvertently proven that with their links. J Milburn 22:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, meets strict WP:BIO just on the scandal (same article appeared in Voice and Miami New Times, but the latter had a follow-up too, and the NY Post ran articles as well). The individual is also a founder and longtime president of the National Cristina Foundation[5], which would make him notable in itself. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Exeunt 23:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I am not up on all the protocols of Wikipedia as far as signatures and did not post accordingly. I reiterate my original criteria for deletion per official Wikipedia policies and guidelines and believe the response of Exeunt validates my perspective on this. Type Five 23:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Hope I did the signature thing right.

• Comment You sign your comments by typing ~~~~, or pressing the signature button above the editing window. Your original comment didn't seem to cite any Wikipedia policies- Why do you support the deletion of this article? J Milburn 23:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Though the article is need of a helluva rewrite to be encyclopedic, it appears to cite enough resources to meet WP:BLP. The additional sources listed here only enforce that. Pending a rewrite, I'd say we can keep this one. -- Kesh 23:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Hmm, not sure I'm informed enough on this subject to comment, but WP:BLP is probably worth noting here. I do have some concerns about this article, as the sources do not seem very reliable to me. I don't know that this should be deleted, but I do feel this should get some attention from a person willing to investigate the situation seriously. I do see how this could raise legal issues for Wikipedia though. Mister.Manticore 23:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment:As long as what is said is sourced, I can't see there being any problem. J Milburn 23:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  I can, when the sources are not reliable, and the material is defamatory. This isn't the New York Times publishing something, but a much more minor paper. As such, I'm dubious of the source, either in regards to verifiability or notability. Mister.Manticore 01:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Update - Okay, the Dealbreaker.com article just references the Broward-Palm Beach New Times articles, so it's not useful. That should be stricken from the article. And the Villiage Voice article is exactly the same as the B-PBNT article, written by the same author, so that one's out. It's looking a bit weaker, but the two B-PBNT articles and NY Post article still support it. The article would be much stronger with new, independant sources, though. -- Kesh 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that the Village Voice citation should be removed (a) it predates the New Times article (day, hours?), but more importantly it demonstates broader editorial oversight of the writter's allegations.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs) 00:27, January 28, 2007 (UTC)
    • Just curious, but how does it demonstrate "broader editorial oversight?" My only real problem with preferring the New Times article is that the second, follow-up article is also on there, and references the first one. -- Kesh 00:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry not to reference policies and guidelines correctly. My references on the Wikipedia site were "what Wikipedia is not" along with the policies and guidelines for biographies of livng persons and other guidelines regarding what is "verifiable," encyclopedic in nature, and neutrality. I will try the signature thing again, thanks for the guidance on that.--Type Five 00:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What we need is for you to explain how the article violates those policies, not just which ones you feel are applicable. AfD defaults to Keep, so those wanting to delete need to be specific in their reasoning for why it should be deleted. -- Kesh 00:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Type Five, are you kidding us with the "signature thing" you seem to have mastered the reversion process just fine. --Kevin Murray 00:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, seriously. You're pushing WP:CIVIL here. Let's keep the discussion to the article itself. If you have a problem with an editor, take it up on their talk page. -- Kesh 00:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Type Five is a single purpose editor recently created whose actions at this article border on vandalism. He/she has also implied that long time editor and broad contributor Exeunt has an axe to grind. Let's call a spade a spade! And I have warned Type Five regarding vandalism at his/her talk page. --Kevin Murray 00:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Call a spade a spade, but leave off the passive-aggressive comments. What you just posted is a lot better than the comment at 00:27. Let the facts speak for themselves, and it's a lot more civil. -- Kesh 01:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not able to answer you Kesh. I have sent two lenghty responses regarding your question, but they are not going through due to an editing conflict of some sort.--Type Five 00:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC) I will try again. Wikipedia policies regarding biographies of living persons presume that the articles can affect the subject's lives (two parties in this entry), show some degree of sensitivity, are unbiased which I don't believe the author is from his comments and references to law firms, etc.), presumption of privacy, criteria for non-public figures, justification, verifiable sources of high quality, etc. Kevin, I am not kidding about anything, I am a newcomer, I admitted that I blanked a page before I understood how to improve an article, and I was unsure of how to do the signature. I will try to keep this neutral however.

I appreciate your efforts at trying to explain. There are a few misunderstandings here, though. First, the policies state that the article must be unbiased, not the editors! I have my own personal biases on many subjects, but I still try to maintain neutrality in all my edits. I do have some concern that the reference cited are not of high quality, I'll grant that. And it needs rewritten to be more encyclopedic. However, as of yet, I don't see that it violates policies. It's weak right now, and if the references are shown to be of poor quality, then I would agree that it should be deleted. -- Kesh 01:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Type Five, my appologies. Welcome! You are wrong on this though, and with all due respect, you are trying to push rope uphill at this point. The best that can be done is to try to diversify the article to demonstrate the subject's finer points. Rich doesn't make him notable, and incest doesn't make him notable, but the two are sysnergistic. Per WP guidelines what is noticed and documented is notable, and this poor fellow has definately been noticed in major way. Good luck with mastering that signature function! --Kevin Murray 01:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin. Kesh, I have looked up the London Standard on this site as well as the other sources, they all seem to be cited as tabloid or alternative, but I guess they are sources. To me, this is what Wikipedia isn't.--Type Five 01:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to help build this article to include more than the scandal, but don't see much more well referenced information available through the obvious sources. Can we expand the information on his charitable work and his leadership in the investment community? Also, these are at this point allegations from his daughter/wife; how about presenting his side. --Kevin Murray 02:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• New Times and Village Voice are one in the same company. I retract my argument that the two references demonstrated broader editorial review of the same contributing writer. I have removed the New Times article from the bibliography since I believe the Village Voice article demonstrates a broader geographic interest in the scandal. --Kevin Murray 02:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I think we have very much come to the conclusion then, that this should be kept, but worked on a little. J Milburn 11:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If you click on discussion on the article page today there is a warning box regarding controversial and potenially libelous content for bios of living persons. In an effort to create an encylopedic quality quality article, the entry is now really reading like a tabloid. The vibrator entry is particularly troublesome. I suppose the subject matter (wealth, sexual accusations, lawsuits)is interesting to some, but I still feel the article is what Wikipedia is not. When in doubt, do no harm.--Type Five 17:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

So you argument is 'Wikipedia is not a tabloid, therefore we don't talk about controversial topics?' Something else that Wikipedia is not- Wikipedia is not censored. There is no reason to shy away from talking about more unsavoury aspects of people as long as we source it well. I cannot see why you have a problem with this. J Milburn 17:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.