Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Murray (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete and salt since there appear to be BLP issues and the article was recreated after deletion. If you want this undeleted you need to create a draft in your user space that uses lots of proper reliable sources that provide a rounded biograophy of this individual and then present it at DRV for review. Spartaz Humbug! 17:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Arnold Murray
AfDs for this article:
Article recreated (though not as pure re-creation of deleted material) by Mercster (talk · contribs) after been recently deleted in another AFD. Concern has been raised that this article does not follow WP:BLP and WP:RS and that this person is not notable per WP:BIO. Following discussion on the articles talk page I am bringing this to AFD for the community to decide. This is a procedural nomination so I am neutral for now. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- LOL...procedural. Great job! Mercster (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. None of the sources provided seem to qualify as reliable sources to me, therefore it fails WP:BIO. Terraxos (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well this deletion nomination is stupid. 90% of this articles content followed what Arnold Murray has done/said on his television program. His television program should count as a reliable citation for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.5.114 (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as fails WP:BLP unable to find reliable sources per WP:V. Article also has WP:POV issues. Major contributor seems to be trying to provide a sanitized version of this subject, and has admitted being a "student" of the subject. Sting au Buzz Me... 11:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- comment at first glance there seems to be a fair amount on google news (contrary to a rather disingenuous assertion on the article's discussion page). --Paularblaster (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- "disingenuous assertion"? Have you read WP:CIVIL? When I did that Google news search it came up zero just as I stated. Which of the links you have provided are saying gives notability to "Arnold Murray"? Pick two of the best out and add them to the article. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I have read WP:CIVIL, but I also know when to call a spade a spade. I'm not asserting notability, I'm asserting that something smells fishy. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- What's fishy is this guy's motives. Less than 24 hours after the article is written, this self-proclaimed "WikiOgre" (the definition sounds like someone who wants to be respected (feared?) for doing nothing but nitpicking on others' work) put the Notability tag on. As you can see in the talk page, I added sources, one of which is a NYC CBS affiliate (!); worried but still unwilling to actually look at the article, he began pasting (in a completely non-grammatical manner) what would be considered "POV" additions to the article, obviously drawn from a couple of the references I had used that happened to criticize Murray. I suspect he was baiting me into editing someone else's content so I could be made to look like i have an interest in something other than quality articles? Why else would he begin adding obviously POV content to what a day earlier he considered a non-notable person?
- After I rightfully Undid that as crap (read: vandalism, which is exactly what it was), suddenly he's got admins (does any one of you know anything about the subject? do you have any criticisms of the text of the article in regards to WP:NPOV rather than pointing out that I admitted I was a student of his?) up in arms and throwing around WikiNerd acronyms in a very intimidating manner.
- LOL. Amateurs. I'm not even voting in this thing, if the page gets deleted, guess who suffers. Not me :-) If anyone with a head on their shoulders wants to fight the good fight, you're welcome to it.Mercster (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- What's fishy is this guy's motives. Less than 24 hours after the article is written, this self-proclaimed "WikiOgre" (the definition sounds like someone who wants to be respected (feared?) for doing nothing but nitpicking on others' work) put the Notability tag on. As you can see in the talk page, I added sources, one of which is a NYC CBS affiliate (!); worried but still unwilling to actually look at the article, he began pasting (in a completely non-grammatical manner) what would be considered "POV" additions to the article, obviously drawn from a couple of the references I had used that happened to criticize Murray. I suspect he was baiting me into editing someone else's content so I could be made to look like i have an interest in something other than quality articles? Why else would he begin adding obviously POV content to what a day earlier he considered a non-notable person?
- Yes I have read WP:CIVIL, but I also know when to call a spade a spade. I'm not asserting notability, I'm asserting that something smells fishy. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- "disingenuous assertion"? Have you read WP:CIVIL? When I did that Google news search it came up zero just as I stated. Which of the links you have provided are saying gives notability to "Arnold Murray"? Pick two of the best out and add them to the article. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I have reviewed this and I have once again not found any real foundation to the accusations been made here. Putting the notability tag on is exactly what you should do with a biographical article with unclear notability per WP:BIO, especially given that this article was recently deleted in a previous AFD - adding tags to articles is not supposed to be a big deal. Adding sourced "POV" to the article is actually absolutely fine if it is balanced, see WP:UNDUE and WP:YESPOV. I am also still confused on how this [1] is vandalism. Edits made by people are not divided between good and vandalism, I have seen no evidence that this established user was not attempting to improve the article, hence per WP:AGF, it is not fair to consider it vandalism (which is a serious accusation to make). I have also seen no evidence that Sting au (talk · contribs) has "got admins up in arms"; my involvement here has had nothing to do with the actions of Sting au. I am remaining neutral on if this article should be deleted or not, but I have and will keep an eye on this wherever it goes given its history, just to help with process. Also for the records, I am actually a WikiGnome. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing fishy about me putting the notability tag on less than 24 hours after creation. From memory I think I marked it as patrolled too didn't I? Anyhow, I know I spotted it in the "new pages" list as I patrol new pages on a regular basis and tag them with appropriate maintenance tags. As for my WikiOgre userbox that seems to be offensive. I guess I can understand where he's coming from? There is a picture of an Ogre on that page that is about to grab some kiddies in their bed! Now I can see how people would find that offensive. It's supposed to be about advancing on unsuspecting articles, but even that concept will no doubt cause undue stress to new article creators not wanting "their" creations to be deleted/altered from here. I'd thought the WikiOgre tag suited me with the new page patrols and tagging articles etc, and I was just trying to fit into the community with my use of this userbox. Now that I've seen that it does indeed cause stress I shall go and remove the userbox from my userpage. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have reviewed this and I have once again not found any real foundation to the accusations been made here. Putting the notability tag on is exactly what you should do with a biographical article with unclear notability per WP:BIO, especially given that this article was recently deleted in a previous AFD - adding tags to articles is not supposed to be a big deal. Adding sourced "POV" to the article is actually absolutely fine if it is balanced, see WP:UNDUE and WP:YESPOV. I am also still confused on how this [1] is vandalism. Edits made by people are not divided between good and vandalism, I have seen no evidence that this established user was not attempting to improve the article, hence per WP:AGF, it is not fair to consider it vandalism (which is a serious accusation to make). I have also seen no evidence that Sting au (talk · contribs) has "got admins up in arms"; my involvement here has had nothing to do with the actions of Sting au. I am remaining neutral on if this article should be deleted or not, but I have and will keep an eye on this wherever it goes given its history, just to help with process. Also for the records, I am actually a WikiGnome. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please pay attention to what is being written. Read read read. It is not adding tags that was fishy, it was adding one tag, and then editing the article with vandalism the next day with POV info. Which is it, not notable or a POV article? You don't know, you're just being a WikiOgre, right?
- It was vandalism. Use your head. Day 1, "WikiOgre" marks article for Notability. Fine. Day 2, after Notability had easily been established, he lashes out with a POV addition that was not balanced in the least; it was essentially the opinion of Murray haters pasted directly into the article. Unlike me, a "good editor", who included spots for both criticisms of Murray and Murray's defense, and also making sure to attribute POV opinion to someone other than the person writing the damn article. Mercster (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hey I'm no Sherlock Holmes but here's what I find "fishy". You create this recently deleted article and fill it full of links to religious websites, some of which allude to Murray being a racist, anti-semitic Neo Nazi. Trouble is you write that article to your sanitized version agenda? Now checking the logs shows this article has had to be semi protected in the past due to numerous edit wars! All that before it was deleted in the previous AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if you had been a party to the original edit wars? I wouldn't even be surprised if you are Arnold Murray? I can't actually think who else would bother creating an article on this guy? It's not a case of notability as much as a case of notoriety! Then I guess Hitler has an article so why not other notorious people. I can't imagine editors trying to sanitize Hitlers article though? Who knows. Perhaps they do. It's not on my watch list. Notability is still not established by the way. A guy this notorious must have valid WP:RS out there somewhere? Once notability is established and he passes WP:BLP (which is Policy) then I'll admit the article should be kept. Also I don't regard my edit that you are whining about as being vandalism. Take it to arbitration if you want. I'm prepared to face up to whatever the system needs to throw at me. And to think I decided to begin editing here as a way to relax! Am I a "Murray hater"? Well I wasn't to start with but the more I find out about the guy the less I like him. If his article is kept it should be well balanced. I wouldn't like his content here to be decided by pro Murray editors or in fact Murray himself. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Since the issue has been raised, I have restored the edit history behind the existing article for its significance and potential usefulness to editors. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hey I'm no Sherlock Holmes but here's what I find "fishy". You create this recently deleted article and fill it full of links to religious websites, some of which allude to Murray being a racist, anti-semitic Neo Nazi. Trouble is you write that article to your sanitized version agenda? Now checking the logs shows this article has had to be semi protected in the past due to numerous edit wars! All that before it was deleted in the previous AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if you had been a party to the original edit wars? I wouldn't even be surprised if you are Arnold Murray? I can't actually think who else would bother creating an article on this guy? It's not a case of notability as much as a case of notoriety! Then I guess Hitler has an article so why not other notorious people. I can't imagine editors trying to sanitize Hitlers article though? Who knows. Perhaps they do. It's not on my watch list. Notability is still not established by the way. A guy this notorious must have valid WP:RS out there somewhere? Once notability is established and he passes WP:BLP (which is Policy) then I'll admit the article should be kept. Also I don't regard my edit that you are whining about as being vandalism. Take it to arbitration if you want. I'm prepared to face up to whatever the system needs to throw at me. And to think I decided to begin editing here as a way to relax! Am I a "Murray hater"? Well I wasn't to start with but the more I find out about the guy the less I like him. If his article is kept it should be well balanced. I wouldn't like his content here to be decided by pro Murray editors or in fact Murray himself. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Delete - recreation of article AfD'd for reasons that extend beyond the specific content. The subject of the article just isn't encyclopedic. Furthermore, I am going to call borderline COI on this one - a "student" of this person has entirely re-written the article on Murray - not a week after the article was deleted. I don't consider that appropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2008 (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.
