Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Africa
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The result was Keep per means of withdrawn nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] John Africa
This is, to quote verbatim from WP policy, a "biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to". "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous". Groupthink 07:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to MOVE. JA's notability is entirely within this organisation. Further, he is not a living person; both articles clearly state that he died in 1985. BTLizard 07:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- My bad, I missed that he's nlp; but it's still controversial and potentially libelous material. Groupthink 07:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Under U.S. law, the estates of dead people cannot sue for libel. Only living people can do that. *** Crotalus *** 08:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- You missed the point. The Philadelphia Police Department can sue for libel. Groupthink 08:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Or perhaps Philadelphia can be sued. --Dhartung | Talk 08:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Which only goes to prove my point. It is not my obligation to research every unsourced claim made in an article. If one is going to claim that Philly PD killed 20 people, one needs to back that claim up with citations like the ones above. Such citations were not provided, ergo the material was controversial and potentially libelous. Of course I didn't know much about the case. If everyone knew everything about everything, there wouldn't be a need for Wikipedia. The onus to provide evidence, however, is on the page creator, not me. Groupthink 08:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Or perhaps Philadelphia can be sued. --Dhartung | Talk 08:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- You missed the point. The Philadelphia Police Department can sue for libel. Groupthink 08:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Under U.S. law, the estates of dead people cannot sue for libel. Only living people can do that. *** Crotalus *** 08:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, the founder of MOVE is certainly notable and the article does cite a reference, although not inline. WP:BLP, which you are quoting, is about editing the content of articles. It is not by itself a reason for deletion. It also pertains to living people, and Leaphart/Africa was killed in the bombing. Certainly such an article should have as many sources as possible, but that Africa was the founder of MOVE and the negative information in the article pertains to the Philadelphia Police, I see no reason to remove it. I see no evidence of discussion on the article's talk page regarding the {{totally disputed}} tag, such as what is considered factually incorrect. --Dhartung | Talk 07:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Per your request. Groupthink 07:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please clarify: are you arguing that controversial material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, especially if potentially libelous, is by itself not grounds for deletion if the biographee in question happens to be deceased?!? And are you also arguing that since the Philly PD aren't the subject of the page, it's OK that they're potentially libeled? Groupthink 08:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Controversial material that is unsourced or poorly sourced should generally be removed from any article where it is found, but especially from biographies of living persons. Its existence, however, is not a ground for deletion. There is no reason that we can't have a balanced stub on any notable individual. Please familiarize yourself with the deletion policy, particularly alternatives to deletion for problematic articles. The article as I see it now is trivially verifiable, although some of the wording might be improved.--Dhartung | Talk 08:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am quite familiar with deletion alternatives, but thank you for the suggestion. Your implication that I did not consider how this could be edited/fixed is wrong. Here is how the article would read if all of the unsourced and off-base material were removed:
If the consensus is to keep that stub rather than delete, then fine, I'll make that edit right now. Groupthink 08:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)John Africa (born Vincent Leaphart) was the founder of MOVE.
References
* Craig R. McCoy, "Who was John Africa?", Philadelphia Inquirer Magazine Jan 12, 1986- I would hope in good faith that you would act to improve the article instead of trying to make a point. --Dhartung | Talk 08:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what point you think I'm trying to make here, other than the point that this article cannot be improved because it does not meet inclusion standards. Groupthink 09:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- 510 Google News Archive results for "john.africa move philadelphia". That's quite a few for someone who you seem certain "does not meet inclusion standards". --Dhartung | Talk 10:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Boy, talk about disingenuous. I said the article, not the person, doesn't merit inclusion. I've been proven wrong (although please do remember that it's the quality, not the quantity of Google hits that count). Groupthink 10:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- 510 Google News Archive results for "john.africa move philadelphia". That's quite a few for someone who you seem certain "does not meet inclusion standards". --Dhartung | Talk 10:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what point you think I'm trying to make here, other than the point that this article cannot be improved because it does not meet inclusion standards. Groupthink 09:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would hope in good faith that you would act to improve the article instead of trying to make a point. --Dhartung | Talk 08:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am quite familiar with deletion alternatives, but thank you for the suggestion. Your implication that I did not consider how this could be edited/fixed is wrong. Here is how the article would read if all of the unsourced and off-base material were removed:
- Controversial material that is unsourced or poorly sourced should generally be removed from any article where it is found, but especially from biographies of living persons. Its existence, however, is not a ground for deletion. There is no reason that we can't have a balanced stub on any notable individual. Please familiarize yourself with the deletion policy, particularly alternatives to deletion for problematic articles. The article as I see it now is trivially verifiable, although some of the wording might be improved.--Dhartung | Talk 08:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please clarify: are you arguing that controversial material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, especially if potentially libelous, is by itself not grounds for deletion if the biographee in question happens to be deceased?!? And are you also arguing that since the Philly PD aren't the subject of the page, it's OK that they're potentially libeled? Groupthink 08:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup; the founder and leader of MOVE is clearly notable. *** Crotalus *** 08:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- The article fails to establish notability. In it's current form, it does not meet WP standards. Groupthink 08:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The article has now been rewritten to a point where it merits inclusion. I withdraw my AfD nomination, but since the article is now primarily about MOVE, I am going to request that it be merged with MOVE. Groupthink 10:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The founder of MOVE should have their own page, with information about their life. DDB 10:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've withdrawn my nom. Please argue against my proposed merger on Talk:John_Africa. Thanks. Groupthink 11:02, 20 May 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.
