Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon James Klingenschmitt

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 without prejudice to recreation. A complicated case, with strong arguments on both sides. However, even those expressing a "keep" opinion largely agree that the current article (and by implication its history) is of questionable standing. While the subject may be notable, and there may be reliable sources with which to write an article, consensus seems to lean toward stating that the current/recent article isn't it. The subject's own expressed wishes also hold some weight here, even though we do not allow individuals to "veto" their articles. Any recreation should take great care to follow WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Shimeru 08:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gordon James Klingenschmitt

Gordon James Klingenschmitt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

My name is Gordon James Klingenschmitt. I am the subject of a biography of a living person. I did not create this page, but improved on a stub originally created under Gordon_Klingenschmitt and changed the name to Gordon_James_Klingenschmitt (also Klingenschmitt). I now propose deleting all three pages, for several reasons.

1) Somebody stole my private information (including my personal VISA card number) and posted it on Wikipedia with the apparent intent to disparage me.

2) More than 5 regular editors of my page regularly disparage me with personal epiphets. (Just read the last 8 entries on the discussion page...honestly, I haven't been called "Slingensh**t" since 4th grade).

3) Whenever pro-Klingenschmitt editors post neutral sources (such as the Washington Times or Worldnet Daily, or original documents posted at persuade.tv), they are quickly deleted by those wishing to disparage me.

4) Even those 5 editors, all anti-Klingenschmitt writers, have agreed my article should be deleted.

While I originally hoped to spur a lively discussion, it's now apparent that I agree with them. The only person not in favor of deletion seems to be DGG, whose impartial edits vainly attempted to save this page. Yet his attempts to discipline the crowds have gone unheeded.

I respectfully request Wikipedia delete all references to Gordon James Klingenschmitt, and let us all return to peaceful co-existence as private citizens.

I may be reached personally at anytime: <redacted contact information>. In Jesus name, Rev. Gordon James Klingenschmitt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klingeng (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 March 2007

• Comment: Fixed nomination. cab 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - if you didn't want your story out there then you probably shouldn't have created a website to promote your prayer tour. Of course personal information such as credit card numbers should be removed but the multiple reliable sources clearly attest to your notability. Otto4711 03:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the 56 Google News Archive sources indicate notability and easily available material. That said, this article is a mess, going into unnecessary detail, and could easily be halved or more. It depends on primary sources and other material that is problematic for controversial topics. Now, as to the other problems ...

• Disruptive edits may be reported as vandalism, and the editors blocked if they persist.
• Posting of credit card numbers should be an immediate bannable offense, and the edit deleted via oversight. If this has happened, it would not be apparent in the edit history. Is there some proof that this happened, e.g. communications with an admin?
• The subject of an article has an inherent conflict of interest and in almost all cases should avoid editing that article. The Talk page exists for bringing up concerns and pointing out alternate sources for information. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Dhartung. The subject of the article appears to be notable, and the cure for the other problems is a more vigilant approach (particularly where credit card numbers are concerned, that's several miles beyond the pale), rather than deletion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, NPOV issues are beyond repair.Watanabe1 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC) — Watanabe1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. The disparaging comments on the discussion page are numerous. Repeated use of vulgarity by many different users. This page is not what Wikipedia intended. Have you tried a db-attack posting?Muddiman 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)— Muddiman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Vandals and disruptive editors should not be given the power, through concerted effort, to cause the deletion of pages they don't like. If editors are being uncivil or are violating WIkipedia rules and policies then sanction the individuals. Otto4711 21:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I responded to an RfC a few months back and tried to edit the article. I got it to a reasonably objective state, and then left quickly, pursued by the complaints of both sides, who had each hoped that an objective approach would favor them. I deliberately haven't been back to look. and have made no recent comments there. There are two separate reasons given for the deletion of the article:

It is unfair to the subject, for it casts him as an unreasonable man with dubious honesty,, when he is only trying to express his honest religious beliefs. As he will never be able to edit the article to make it honest, please delete it.

Alternatively, it is about a disgrace to the Navy and to ministers of the Gospel, who would like to pretend it's not notable.

As my personal summary, he is N. He has deliberately taken an extreme position, offending many non-Christians and liberal Christians, and has knowingly or unknowingly become a tool of the extreme right wink political groups. It is impossible to know whether our not his extremism is sincere. He has throughout this sought publicity--he has paraded in front of the White House, he has given interviews, he has written his side of it for partisan propaganda. He and his supporters have cleverly managed to get their political opponents caught in a dilemma between a defense of his free speech and religion, and the defense of his auditors' freedom of religion to not have to hear what they find offensive. He has done everything he has done deliberately, and has no right to request the deletion of an account of what he has quite consciously done. ( Some of the comments about the talk page are justified. I attempted to refactor it to remove the reciprocal insults, as outrageous as any I have seen on WP, but even my attempt to archive it was reverted. I would suggest blanking it as a courtesy to all concerned. ) DGG 04:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Interesting discussion, but isn't the self-promotion DGG's complaining about just one more reason to delete him?Justinlawyer 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A couple months ago I tried adding factual data but DGG immediately deleted it because he said Worldnet Daily is not a valid source if the information favors Klingenschmitt but now it looks like the haters have cited Worldnet Daily as a valid source of information disfavorable to him and DGG has no problem with that so I wonder if he's really an impartial editor after all. They cite NPOV as their reason to delete anything favorable to the guy. Come on.

Davesaturndealer 20:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC) — Davesaturndealer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete He's back, and he posted my personal VISA card online again. Will nobody help me delete this entire page? Here's the email I just sent to the Wikipedia Foundation. But meanwhile, I'd appreciate some help from the voters, here, to delete my entire page. PLEASE VOTE TO DELETE. I'm done. And Wikipedia shouldn't have to pay the price for this idiot's violations of law.

Mr. Jimmy Wales, Once again, I am informed that somebody posted my VISA card number on Wikipedia, during the discussion about whether to delete my profile. Since it appears you're unable to control your users, I am (again) requesting (for the last time) that Wikipedia immediately delete all articles about Gordon_James_Klingenschmitt and Gordon_Klingenschmitt and Klingenschmitt from your entire program. These violations of my privacy by the Wikipedia Foundation are in direct violation of the 1974 Privacy Act. I've tried (twice) to follow your instructions for deleting the page, without success. You have one week to reply, or delete my page, or I'll begin discussing proper actions with my lawyers. Gordon James Klingenschmitt

• Really, what other options do I have here? I'm being blackmailed, and all you 'professional editors' sleep well at night, I'm sure, having done nothing to help me. Its one thing to live a public life, but quite another to be stalked.Klingeng 22:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The violations of privacy that you discuss here are extremely serious, though they are not directly related to the question of whether there should be an article about you. I am bringing this matter to the administrators' noticeboard for further discussion. Please note that legal threats against Wikipedia or its editors are not permitted if you wish to remain editing. Such matters may be raised directly with the Wikipedia Office directly if necessary. I do not believe that a claim of legally cognizable invasion of privacy would have any merit but I do agree that we need to be alert to, and immediately address, any genuine infringements of privacy or postings of personal information that may take place. Newyorkbrad 22:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see any realistic way in which we can delete an article because its subject is unhappy about it. If someone is publishing his VISA number, the card should be cancelled immediately as having been compromised; but a compromised credit card cannot justify the deletion of an article. Torontothegood 22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - if every Wikipedia bio had this problem, the project would rightly be shut down under a barrage of horrible press and well-earned lawsuits. If we aim to present biographies of living people, then we must not merely recognize the problems addressed here but decisively solve them. If we can't solve them, that's our fault, not Klingenschmitt's; he shouldn't have to pay for our collective dysfunctions.Proabivouac 00:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and whittle down. As it reads now it 'seems' okay, and illustrates conflicts inherent in service to two domains. However, the participants are quite enthusiasticly enraged. "Only Klingenschmitt would know his own Visa number certainly no one on the forum would have access to it." seems to be the nicest quote I can find which illustrates one fundamental flaw in the approach of most editors here - this isn't a open forum for discussion and disparagement of the person. It's supposed to be about the article, even on the talk page. Shenme 00:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - a brief review of the sources used for this article indicate that few of them would be considered "reliable" - for example, the Statement of Claim (a document that contains only unproven allegations) being used as a source. By the time all the garbage sources are kicked out, there will be very little left of this article. It is very POV. So it fails both of the key editing policies - WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Notability is only a guideline; if the article fails policy then whether or not someone is notable is immaterial. Risker 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as stub and expand using proper sources, not the subject’s home page and a bunch of government PDFs. —xyzzy_n 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete then restart article from scratch with sub-stub following BLP as closely as possible. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with caveats Nuke the current page (and especially that horrible BLP violation that is the talk page--do THAT *now*). Keep, then also delete and recreate the page as a basic stub--closing admin, just create a listing of all the sources on talk or external links of the basic stub, and let it get rebuilt as a semi-protected article. Easy notability--30ish sources? but the current mess is bad. Start over, but keep/rebuild right. - Denny 06:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• DELETE This Article! This article should have never been written in the first place. It originated as a self-promotion piece by the subject. Note that this article is the second response on a Google search of the individual in question. It is evident that he wanted to use wiki as a vehicle to propagate his own political agenda. A cursory look at the subject's own press releases and the subject matter in this article show that he is definitely not notable enough for an autobiography to appear on wiki. The fact that he is an officer who was convicted at Court Martial, though not an every day event, is similarly not notable enough to warrant his posting an autobiography on wiki. There are a number of Navy chaplains who have been court martialed for violating Federal law as the subject has done. The only difference in this case is that the subject is attempting to claim religious persecution as mitigation of his crime. It just doesn't wash. DELETE, DELETE, DELETE! USMC Padre 06:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• For what its worth pretty much anything in WP will be the top 1-3 searches on Google for that thing, eventually. - Denny 07:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • For what its worth it already is on Google. Which is why it needs to be seriously pruned of libelous information and rewritten. --Iamunknown 03:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and rewrite Subject is notable and is a limited purpose public figure and the subject of much news coverage ([1] [2] to start) but the current article should be replaced with a neutral and well-sourced one. I do believe a subject's wishes should weigh seriously in an AfD; however, there is significant encyclopedic value to a neutral article about him. Note to Mr. Klingenschmitt: if any more privacy vios happen, contact oversight-l@wikimedia.org by email to get the stuff removed instead of posting on-wiki, to avoid attracting attention to the stuff while it's still around. 64.160.39.153 07:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and stub, although I don't care how the article is kept. Whether we stub this current version of delete it and start over again, the same end resut is acheived. I think the person is notable, but the level of detail is not. Of course, the personal attacks and privacy violations need to be overisighted and I think those who add these unacceptable edits should be blocked on sight. Natalie 07:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject of this article is of marginal and possibly only temporary notability, and the fact that the article has been the subject of extreme attacks and the subject requests deletion clearly tips the balance. It can be recreated if there is good cause to. Sam Blacketer 10:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Blacketer, the subject is of extremely marininal notability and definitely a flash in the pan as far as longevity goes. His crime was such a basic violation of US Code governing military behavior that it is only an oddity at best. The subject repeatedly used this article and WP for his self-promotion and has admitted it in his comment on this page. The fact that some editors objected to his spin does not make them "attackers" or "haters" as some have commented on this page. I find it troubling that mere disagreement with the subject's political spin is so casually categorized as hate by so many editors on the page. Stating the fact that the subject is a federally convicted criminal is not a negative attack, but a statement of fact. If that is "hate" or an "attack" then we need to delete the WP articles on Hitler and Stalin! Somewhere along the lines WP needs to decide if stating facts is acceptable or not. Since so many of the editors here seem to have such problems with a dispassionate recitation of the facts of the story, I say delete the whole story. Many of the comments made here makes one wonder about the value and/or legitimacy of WP in the first place. NavyChaps 14:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Hmm, the subject is definitely noted and thus notable, but the history of both the article and the talk page are rather libellous. I'd say delete both the article and the talk page and the talk archives, recreate a small stub, and watch meticulously to make sure this doesn't happen again. It's sickening to see how distasteful some of the conversations in the talk archives are. --Iamunknown 19:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. But if you keep it, leave it fully protected from vandals, especially on the discussion page. I tried moderating a reasonable discussion there last year, and was shouted out by hostile attackers, the same ones now using repeated vulgarity. It's unfortunate some represent themselves to be Naval officers. (and even Chaplains?). We'd never talk like that in the Air Force.ChaplainReferee 02:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if sourced. Information from previous versions establishes notability - but unsourced. If it can't be well-sourced now, then delete it without prejudice to later recreation. What is there now isn't worth keeping. Harassment to the subject should be shot on sight. SchmuckyTheCat 06:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, since you are notable, improve due to BLP. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but tear the thing apart and start again as a semi-protected stubbiest of stubs. (On a different note, notice how all the major POV pushers in the article's history are SPA's? I wonder what would happen if all of their edits were undone. Just thinking aloud, here...) Caknuck 05:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Notability marginal, he's certainly not a Public Figure and I think under WP:NPF this is a borderline issue where "do no harm" means respect his wishes. NBeale 06:31, 27 March 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.