Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Gorenfeld

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. The consensus to is not overwhelming, but as several users have noted, in such cases it appears appropriate to honour what may be the subject's wishes. Sandstein 13:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Gorenfeld

John Gorenfeld (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

(Certain editors perhaps unsympathetic to this article's deletion have been notified by creator of said article on talk pages Diff) Smeelgova 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I let the co-contributor to the article, Exucmember, know what was going on. Steve Dufour 21:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a contributor to the article, and I always put such pages on my watch list. I would have commented here even if Steve Dufour hadn't mentioned it.

If Smeelgova will affirm that he did not contact anyone surreptitiously (which would not be inconsistent with his past behavior), I will accept that affirmation at face value. -Exucmember 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The only time that I contacted users regarding an AFD, I was previously unaware of the policy against this. I had apologized in that particular AFD and the AFD was unsuccessful. I have not contacted anyone regarding this particular AFD. Smeelgova 17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi guys -- I don't think I'm nearly important enough to qualify for a Wikipedia entry on myself but I'm flattered that Rev. Moon follower SteveDufour created one about me. Nevertheless its claim that i'm an "unprincipled dogmatist" isn't really NPOV. Johngorenfeld 13:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - original nomination was incomplete and formatted incorrectly, so I've corrected (I think). I also removed the "unprincipled dogmatist" comment from the article which was inserted by an anon-IP, not by the article's creator. As far as the article, I'll have to think about this. I'm sympathetic to those who do not want WP articles about themselves, but I don't think that's a valid reason for deletion. - Aagtbdfoua 14:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a way of knowing that the WP editor "Johngorenfeld" is really the John Gorenfeld of the article? Steve Dufour 17:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can tell from my dogmatic lack of principles. Johngorenfeld 17:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that in cases of borderline notability (which I'd classify this as) that a request from the individual to remove their article seems reasonable. I agree that certifying the person's identity is a bit of a problem, but since we are supposed to assume good faith I think we are thus inclined to accept the claim in the absence of contrary evidence. Tarinth 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I communicated with John Gorenfeld through the email address he uses on his personal website (which I whois'd and confirmed was owned by John Gorenfeld) so I'm quite satisfied that it is really him. Tarinth 19:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Frankly I could not believe that John would want to have the article removed. I would have thought that he would welcome the publicity. Steve Dufour 20:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence in the article of notability to WP:BIO standards by being the primary subject of multiple independent and reliable published sources. GRBerry 15:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete In fact, the piece plagiarizes from my professional bio at www.gorenfeld.net. Wikipedia isn't a who's-who of struggling freelance hacks, and I don't really belong among a list of important investigative journalists of our time. Johngorenfeld 16:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Huh? I did write (or start, most of the current words are not mine) the article. It was as part of my general work on Unification Church related articles. (I am a church member as "Johngorenfeld" mentioned.) I tried to be fair and accurate and certainly didn't plagiarize anything. I never used the words "unprincipled dogmatist", it is just not the kind of expression I would use. Exucmember, a critic of the Unification Church, also contributed to the article. Steve Dufour 17:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC) p.s. John was mentioned by newspapers all over the United States and was interviewed on National Public Radio and ABC TV for his role in reporting on the Sun Myung Moon Coronation incident. p.p.s. I did add the sentence, "He is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley's journalism school and was a crime reporter for the Modesto Bee newspaper of Modesto, California." based on information from John's site. However I don't think that would be considered plagiarism by any reasonable person.

Mr. Defour, you win the award for hilarity. Johngorenfeld 17:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete in deference to Mr. Gorenfeld; I'd normally vote "keep" on this, because the ABC news and Washington Post coverage of him certainly suggests a level of notability that's usually acceptable for inclusion--but given that Gorenfeld states that he wasn't really the subject of that coverage--and because it is already somewhat borderline and the subject himself would prefer not to have it, I don't see a reason not to delete. Tarinth 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, there is room to expand and there is a degree of notability greater than the one of an average journalist... the POV parts should be removed though Alf photoman 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete He seems to be a blogster that has freelance authored a few newspaper and web articles. His google hits are many, but they seem to be his blog pages and very litte more. Doesn't meet WP:N at this time.

Here is a link to Google news archive search that shows 68 hits. Most are on his byline, only a handfull mention him and none of those mentions seem to be from a news-article.(blog sites) He is simply not notable/famous to merit an encylopedia article, at this time per WP:BIO. He's just one of the great unwashed, like the rest of us Mytwocents 21:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that I see the date for the "unprincipled dogmatist" bit -- Mr. Defour, in all fairness, it's likely that it was inserted by a fan of Sam Harris, the atheist author whose fans are in high dudgeon this morning over my article about his books. So I will take your word.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johngorenfeld (talk • contribs).

Thanks John. Where is the article? I'd like to check it out. Steve Dufour 20:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sam Harris (author) Sounds like an interesting guy. Steve Dufour 00:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Found it[1]. Steve Dufour 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Though the article Sun Myung Moon Coronation itself is notable, this article is not, and it should be noted that there are actually zero citations in the John Gorenfeld article. Smeelgova 21:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

A reader has to go 2 inches down the page to the external links. All of the information in the article is from those sites.Steve Dufour 23:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep – The English Wikipedia contains loads of articles for little known journalists. Laurence Boyce 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per request of user by the same name. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment – In my view, it is entirely irrelevant whether or not the subject wishes to have an article. Laurence Boyce 10:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's somewhat relavent. In cases of borderline notability (like this), WP has removed articles at the request of the subject before. I think WP:IAR trumps all other policies in cases like this. Tarinth 13:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Question - How is it possible for the article to be an attack article when most of the information is copied from the subject's own website? Steve Dufour 16:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Quoting User:Steve Dufour: "most of the information is copied from the subject's own website" - First off, there's something very wrong with that, right off the bat... I don't think Mr. Gorenfeld ever gave permission to have information "copied" from his site... Smeelgova 16:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

I thought that was the main purpose of Wikipedia, and in fact of the Internet itself, to share information. Steve Dufour 16:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, in a vague sense, but if you didn't create it you have to get permission to use it. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to John's site so you can compare: [2] As you can see the facts are taken from there but not the exact words, and credit is given. Steve Dufour 06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Changing to weak delete per below. Doesn't seem notable enough to me. How is this subject different from other journalists? I agree with Laurence Boyce about the subject's wishes, but it looks like in this case the subject has the right of it and is humble enough to say so. delldot | talk 23:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion John is demasiado modesto. :-) Steve Dufour 17:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read the arguments below and the article as it is now, and I'm still not convinced of the subject's notability. He reported a story that got national attention, but how much of that national attention did he himself get, in a way that wasn't trivial? (I'd think just a mention of the fact that he wrote it is kind of trivial, unless the coverage featured him) Does just writing a story that gets national attention make you notable in itself? I admit that it wouldn't be terrible if the article is kept, since it's verifiable and that, in my mind, is the most important aspect of notability. I'll keep an eye on the discussion and change my mind if someone finds press coverage that specifically features him. delldot | talk 19:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Summary:

Reason 1 to delete: The subject of the article requested it. This reason may no longer apply.

The subject of the article is a new user, and seemed in his early comments not to understand vandalism (or not to believe the inappropriate phrase was vandalism). He happened to see the article just afterward, but not before the vandalism was removed. He can verify that it was vandalism by unregistered user 203.59.166.123 by going to the history tab. Perhaps he is afraid that the article might be vandalized again. Assuming he still wants the article deleted, unless he comments again here, giving his reason (other than vandalism), "Reason 1 to delete" seems to carry little weight.

Reason 2 to delete: Copyvio. If there ever was a copyvio, the article has been rewritten, and there is no longer any trace of the similar phrase or two that prompted the accusation. This reason clearly no longer applies.

Reason 3 to delete: Subject is not sufficiently notable. Undecided.

• delldot says: "Doesn't seem notable enough to me. How is this subject different from other journalists?"
• Alf photoman says: "there is a degree of notability greater than the one of an average journalist."

Opinions vary on this point. Laurence Boyce says "The English Wikipedia contains loads of articles for little known journalists," and contributor Steve Dufour says "John was mentioned by newspapers all over the United States and was interviewed on National Public Radio and ABC TV for his role in reporting on the Sun Myung Moon Coronation incident." Others do not find these arguments compelling, but much of the discussion above has become outdated because of improvements to the article.

The template above says "This is not a vote." But I have seen AfDs where lazy admins seemed to do nothing other than count up the votes (which are not supposed to be votes). Why do we have a tradition of putting our conclusion in the form of "Delete" or "Keep" in bold at the beginning of each entry? Shouldn't an admin deciding the outcome be required to check for changes to the article and read the entire discussion, looking for reasons rather than votes?

Since I have to go along with this questionable tradition, I will. I hope admins and others who comment on this page will read.

Keep (see reasoning immediately above). -Exucmember 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, seems notable enough to me. Moreover I have strong doubts that User:Johngorenfeld is really the same person as the subject of the article.--Ioannes Pragensis 16:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

They seem to be the same person. This was talked about near the top of this page. Steve Dufour 16:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

They seem to you to be the same person. But I for myself do not see any real proof of it.--Ioannes Pragensis 13:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Short of depositioning the person, I don't think we can do much better: the person confirmed their identity through an e-mail message, using the e-mail address on their website. On Wikipedia, you are encouraged to assume good faith. Tarinth 15:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I also e-mailed him, using the address on his site, to let him know what was happening here. He returned my message with the answer "LOL". Steve Dufour 18:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the effort. Nevertheless the identity of the user does not matter much in the case. The question is whether the article is encyclopedic and not whether the subject of the article wishes this or that.--Ioannes Pragensis 14:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

*Weak Delete - lacks a mainstream secondary reference. Addhoc 20:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the Washington Post and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette mainstream? Steve Dufour 06:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, because they do not discuss Mr. Gorenfeld directly as the subject of the article, only in passing. Smeelgova 11:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Ok, the article said he wrote for "The London Guardian" which is meaningless. He actually has written for The Guardian, which combined with being mentioned in the Washington Post is good enough. Addhoc 15:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

*Keep per above. Addhoc 15:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Sure he's a journalist, but this isn't Bob Woodward. When an individual of borderline notability requests that their bio be deleted we usually honor that desire. It won't make much of a dent in Wikipedia's overall value as a reference source and it shows respect for the person. Durova^Charge 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Durova. Usually on borderline cases I 'vote' keep to encourage article writing, however in this case, I'll make an exception because the subject has requested delete. Addhoc 11:17, 16 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.