Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margita Bangová

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 - don't be silly. - David Gerard 10:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Margita Bangová

Margita Bangová (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This biographical article lacks notability, Wikipedia is is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Probably the intent of its creation is Romani bashing. There are so many locally known beggars and con-artists of other ethnicities presented in local newspapers, but they are not entitled to an wiki article. The biography itself is not entitled for a wiki article, has no encyclopedic value. There is no necessity to make a wiki article about a shaking beggar holding a sign reading "Please help me. I am poor. I will pray for you", belonging to a non-mainstream minority, usually subject for bashing. Also its redirects should be deleted: Shaky Lady, Margita Bangova, Margita Horvathová, Margita Horvathova Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I am familar with the aforementioned beggar. I doubt many beggars have reached her notability and notoriorty. She made the front cover of various national newspapers! I don't think this is Gypsy bashing at all, there is no POV in this article. Check out its talkpage, everyone seems rather happy with it. --125.237.100.214 10:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This is what I'm saying too, that "everyone seems rather happy with it", it is just a minority bashing. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Note that the above IP is currently listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hayden5650, likely to belong to User:Hayden5650, currently at the third block because of, among other things, Romani bashing. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 10:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Cheers for the heads-up Desiphral, I didn't realise that! I hope that checkuser gets sorted soon, how long does it normally take? Seems half of NZs IPs are listed there ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.100.214 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. I wrote the article and can assure you that I am in no way racist. I'm not even sure where you would have gotten that idea; Bangova is notorious not because she's a gypsy or a beggar but because she's a con artist whose deceptive attempts to garner pity went far beyond the norm. She was featured on the cover page of a major newspaper, has been the subject of multiple subsequent articles in other newspapers, and IIRC was even covered on the national television news (CTV). Wikipedia is not politically correct and should not be removing articles on well-known criminals just because they happen to be members of an ethnic minority. —Psychonaut 12:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you imply there are no White Canadians beggars with such deceptive attempts? There are many pictures circulating on Internet with North American White beggars employing all kind of pity-empathy-amusement attractions like "need funding for alcohol research" and many others. "Far beyond the norm" is your POV, what mattered was the ethnicity, anyone may see in the article's History and in the talk page that most of the users who supported the article come or have links with Eastern Europe, expressing the discrimination from this area. She became well-known because she is Romani, the mass-media presents what the people want to read. However, this does not make this person notable in this "field". Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 12:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I am stating that few other deceptive beggars have received cover stories from prominent local papers, articles in national papers, and reports on CTV. You can believe if you want that she is being vilified by the news media for being Romani, but that doesn't change the fact that she's notable according to Wikipedia's policies. If you have an issue with the way the article is written, then rewrite the article; don't try to have it deleted. —Psychonaut 12:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Notability implies also an encyclopedic value of the article. What is the encyclopedic value in the tabloids' presentations of a shaking beggar, belonging to a non-mainstream minority, usually subject for bashing? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. If we can keep the article on a New Zealand socialites whose only claim to fame is her marriage to a former cricket player, this article certainly establishes notability. The subject was featured on national television and in national periodicals for her periodicals actions. The article is sourced (though not cited as thoroughly as I would like), so there is no good reason to delete. The claims of racism are spurious and violate WP:AGF (and given the ethnicity of the accusers, are probably suspect anyway). I do not see how this article violates WP:NPOV: the fact that the subject was Romani may have contributed to her notoriety, but this article does not cast aspersions upon her for her ethnicity. --Nonstopdrivel 13:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know which "New Zealand socialite" you're talking about, but I doubt that including an article about her could be construed as libel or racism. How do you know for sure she was "featured...for her actions"? Many Afro-Americans are featured on TV shows like Cops in the US, but they are featured mainly for their ethnicity by admission of the director himself. It's entirely possible that "(t)he subject" was singled out just for being Romani; this has happened countless times and still happens.
The only source provided is a tabloid, by admission of the author; the CTV report cited itself draws from the tabloid, and "CityPulse News" is apparently not reliable/noteworthy enough to have earned a Wikipedia article. You accuse Desiphral of violating a Wikipedia rule by suspecting him partly based on his ethnicity; isn't that in itself a violation of another rule?
This article is NPOV because it is mainly cited from one source (and a tabloid at that) and includes no information on how the Romani community perceives this. This is very important information, especially if Margita Bangová really did encourage Czech Romanies to move to Canada. Surely some Romanies must have been aware of this encouragement if it really did happen; what do they have to say? If this is as famous as it is made out to be, surely Romani scholars must be aware of it, too. What do they have to say, and how is this article legitimate if it does not include their views? --Kuaichik 01:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The New Zealand socialite referred to is Sally Ridge, a television personality who had a high enough profile for an article (including considerable television work) long before she married Adam Parore, the cricketer mentioned. In any case, Nonstopdrivel, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Grutness...wha? 02:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Some "delete" voters have some legitimate arguments, but others are simply grasping at straws. Let's start with the impugning of sources. Contrary to what you write, CityPulse was (at the time) a nationally syndicated television news program, and has had a Wikipedia article since 2004. Other sources include Toronto's largest newspaper, the Star, and the two largest national news services in Canada, CTV and CBC. Moving on to the issue that these news sources are deliberately attacking Bangová because she is a gypsy, I doubt that's the case, as most of the articles don't even mention her ethnicity. But even if it were true, it seems to me that people researching institutional anti-gypsy sentiment would find this incident a particularly notable example. Shall we also delete The Eternal Jew simply because it paints Jews in a bad light and plays upon the negative stereotypes people hold about Jews? —Psychonaut 02:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This comparation with The Eternal Jew is really ridiculous and from a Romani point of view it is perceived as ironical. Nowadays it is recognized that this film is just anti-Jewish propaganda, based on the centuries-old prejudices and this is the way it is presented in the article. But this Margita Bangova issue is presented the way The Eternal Jew was presented in the Nazi Germany. Somehow the fact that you pointed to this example may bring a clarification about this issue. The acceptance of this article implies that Wikipedia should reflect the racist prejudices of many among the contemporary English-speaking people, that here it is possible and socially accepted (the same as in many cases of real life) to make anti-Romani propaganda. The fact is that nowadays, while it is not possible to make anti-Jewish propaganda, in real life (including Canada, as this media hoax shows) it is possible to make anti-Romani propaganda. The question is: if the majority of the contemporary World-wide English speaking people see nothing bad in promoting the anti-Romani prejudices is it necessary to appear they also at English Wikipedia? Because this presentation is similar with that of The Eternal Jew in the Nazi Germany, just propaganda. As Kuaichik wrote before, "If this is as famous as it is made out to be, surely Romani scholars must be aware of it, too. What do they have to say, and how is this article legitimate if it does not include their views?" Must English Wikipedia reflect the contemporary prejudices accepted by the majority, even when it is obvious they are as such and not "reality" as many users keep describing all this hoax? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine, my mistake, CityPulse (or rather CityNews) does have its own Wikipedia article. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the sources are all incredibly one-sided. Most of them are not only from the same tabloid but also from the same reporter! And even if the Star is Toronto's largest newspaper, that doesn't make it a reliable source, since you have admitted that it is a tabloid. Finally, this is not a "particularly notable example" of anti-Romani discrimination. How can you put a mere panhandler on the same footing as, say, Jimmy Marks, who indeed is a particularly notable example of institutional anti-Romani discrimination? --Kuaichik 23:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
First you falsely claim that CityPulse has no Wikipedia article, and now you are falsely claiming that I said the Toronto Star was a tabloid. If you're not going to bother to read, Kuaichik, then I see no point in continuing this argument. —Psychonaut 03:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake again. I must have meant the Toronto Sun, which is the main source in this article and which you said "may be a tabloid," a bit further down on this page. And since the other mistake (concerning CityNews a.k.a. CityPulse) seems to bother you, I apologize for that as well, though I already pointed it out. I'm not lying, just making a couple of mistakes, and I agree, those two mistakes are entirely my fault. --Kuaichik 02:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable in an encyclopaedic sense. Being a nine-day wonder in the local papers is hardly basis for inclusion in wikipedia Trugster 14:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • She has received occasional coverage in the local and national press for five years, with articles as recent as 16 June 2007. I don't think this qualifies as a "nine-day wonder". —Psychonaut 14:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This presence in mass media express only the racist POV of some people, they are offered what they want to read. There are enough White beggars, shaky or other way. Do you imagine a mass media coverage about them? What would be the necessity? So, again, here we are not gathering an indiscriminate collection of information, which may have some media coverage because of the racist POV. The biography itself is not entitled for a wiki article. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • She was also mentioned in Washington Post and in the Czech Republic news (because of the visa problem). The Czech Wiki article had survived their 2005 VfD for that reason. Pavel Vozenilek 04:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, goody, I suppose this makes her oh so relevant. Besides, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Czech Wikipedia. My guess is the Czech Wikipedia has no Romani members. --Kuaichik 04:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete: per G10 as egregious attack article. "With her shabby clothing, cane, and apparently uncontrollable full-body trembling, she became known as the "Shaky Lady" and was regarded as a wretched object of pity."  RGTraynor  14:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Everything in the article came from published sources, though they were not cited at the time the article was written. I've just added four references for the sentence you quote (themselves containing quotes from interviews about people's reactions to Bangova). I don't see how it's such an attack, though, to report what others have published. The article now has only a couple outstanding {{fact}} templates. —Psychonaut 15:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Again, notability implies also an encyclopedic value of the article. What is the encyclopedic value in the tabloids' presentations of a shaking beggar holding a sign reading "Please help me. I am poor. I will pray for you", belonging to a non-mainstream minority, usually subject for bashing? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 15:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The Toronto Sun may be a tabloid, but the Toronto Star is not, and neither is CTV News. If this is a conspiracy by the racist Canadian media to vilify gypsies, then surely that conspiracy itself is notable, this incident being a particularly notable example. —Psychonaut 15:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Mike Strobel from Toronto Sun is the main journalist who profited from making articles about her, while other publications just wrote what it seems to be socially accepted racist POV in Canada. The texts of these articles are obviously trying to stir anti-Romani feelings both in Canada ("Gypsies, come to Canada!", implying that all the Romani persons are just copycats of Bangova) and in Eastern Europe (naming her as "an ambassador of the Czech Republic"). They never seem to be interested who are the Roma, if she is representative for the Romani people. I repeat, her biography is not notable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it is just the usual media hoax regarding the Romani people, pushing in front a non-notable individual fitting the "Gypsy" image, just for stirring passions. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 16:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it has stirred your passions, and consumed much of your time. You seems that have written more here than is in the article itself. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply: Allow me to quote from WP:BLP: "In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When writing about a person who is only notable for one or two events, including every detail, no matter how well-sourced, can lead to problems ... When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." An attack page is an attack page.  RGTraynor  16:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and address "fact tags" It is well documented, but needs to be even better referenced to address concerns of living people. There never should have been the word "notorious" in any article on a living person. Please make sure every sentence or paragraph is referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There appears to have been a crusade by one newspaper columnist against one beggar whose performance art was to shake her body all day. This seems as worth of deletion on BLP grounds as other recent deletions of other articles about people who also had newspaper stories about them. She is no more encyclopedic that hundreds of thousands of other beggers, but seems to have become a target. Edison 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. It's an article about a person who gained minor notoriety in Canada. It's not an extraordinarily important article, but the main reason for this AfD is because Desiphral doesn't like the reality of the article, for purely racial reasons. And that's not a reason for deleting an article.--Prosfilaes 18:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you mean that this article presents the reality, the truth about the Romani people? This is itself a serious racist allegation. Please explain further what you mean. Because all the notoriety came from the Romani (so-called "Gypsy") background, by exploiting the "Gypsy" image, by stirring hate both in Canada and in Eastern Europe. This is how this person is presented. The biography itself of this person does not deserve a wiki article. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Truth about the Romani people?!? That's precisely my point, it's not about the Romani people. Argue about whether or not she's notable and verifiable, not about how we should delete her article for racial reasons.--Prosfilaes 19:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Then to what "reality" did you point to? Because all her presentation was in the direction of making her a typical "Gypsy" person, the usual "discrimination management" that picks some non-representative Roma, selects negative things about them, then presents them as the true "Gypsies". In the meantime, the same image creators do not make the same negative selections with people from their own group and do not present really representative Romani people. Do you know anything else about this person, beyond the steretypical characterization from the tabloids? What is the reason for giving her a wiki article? For fitting the "Gypsy" stereotypical image? Do you think this is a encyclopaedical reason? I presented already why this biography of a shaky beggar is not worthy a wiki article, including the fact that the person herself was just a common begger targeted by a tabloid's columnist (also per User:Edison and User:RGTraynor above). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
          • The reason for giving her a wiki article is because she is a person who has been covered in a prominent fashion repeatedly in major media. If she weren't Romani, you wouldn't care. I'm highly opposed to deleting articles just because they cover a non-politically correct topic.--Prosfilaes 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
            • So, now you insinuate that the racist here is me. What reasons do you have to say that I wouldn't care if this person would not have been Romani? Do you imply the other steretoype that the Roma do not care about the broad society? And this is not a simply "non-politically correct topic", it is a usual media hoax about the Roma. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 21:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Change: she has international fame, and has prompted changes in international relations between the Czech Republic and Canada. That makes here notable.--Prosfilaes 13:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I have addressed these comments below. --Kuaichik 16:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - easily meets WP:BIO due to coverage in multiple secondary sources and demonstrsble name recognition among substantial populations of Canada and beyond. Also recent addition of sources was addressing {{fact}} tag concerns. Dl2000 21:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The notability is not established (see the comments to the fourth note after this one, as well as the fifth vote). Besides, wasn't she only in the news sporadically, every now and then "for more than a brief period of time" ? --Kuaichik 02:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think it's fair to call this article "Romani bashing," but I otherwise agree with the nomination. This is a panhandler, for heaven's sake! Just because a panhandler has been a subject of multiple articles doesn't make her sufficiently notable for Wikipedia.--Mantanmoreland 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I placed a clean-up tag on the article so that concerns about tone and attacking the subject can be addressed. The series of articles on her was notable and resulted in immigration measures. Canuckle 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I note one of the cleanup tags you added was {{orphan}}, which surprised me, as I had added links from other relevant articles. I now see that they have been removed by the User:Desiphral. —Psychonaut 23:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
"Notable" ?! They came from a tabloid! A tabloid is not a notable source. --Kuaichik 01:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although I'm sure the article was written in good faith, the rules have changed with regards to biographies. Even if true and well sourced, the potential damage to this individual is greater than the good it does the world to know that there are crooks in the world. semper fictilis 22:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
BLP is all about potential libel and reliability. If it's true and well sourced, the potential damage to the individual is not relevant.--Prosfilaes 07:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
If it's true and well sourced. There's no proof that it is. The only sources are the Toronto Sun, a tabloid by admission of the creator of this article, and sources that draw from that tabloid (or, in any case, very dubious sources from the same city). --Kuaichik 00:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- she is very well-known and considered notable in Canada. Her notoriety here, as shown by the mutliple references, is what makes this an indiscriminate collection of information about a pan-handler. The fact-tag and the anti-Romani POV must be addressed, but AfD is not an appropriate mechanism for addressing those concerns. Her behaviour and activities have been well-documented in the third party sources. We must not shy away from having bios on living people because of perceived "potential damage". (What potential damage? That people may stop being conned by her?) Ground Zero | t 22:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Since when was she considered notable "in Canada"? Toronto =/= Canada, and I certainly never heard of her. I have heard of numerous other scam artists pretending to be homeless/disabled, so it isn't like she is unique in this regard either. Resolute 23:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, well, if you haven't heard of her, then she can't be notable. Personally, I come to Wikipedia to learn about things that I don't know about, not just read about things I already know about. She's been covered repeatedly in the Toronto Star which, while it is published in Toronto, is widely read across Ontario, and is the largest selling newspaper in Canada. Ground Zero | t 02:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
        • No, I am merely pointing out that Toronto is not the centre of the universe, and that asserting this individual is notable "in Canada" when she has only a local "following" is ridiculous. Regardless, my delete vote stands: just because she appeared in the newspaper a few times, she is not automatically notable. No more so than any random local individual who gets a writeup in the local paper. Resolute 02:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete newsworthy is not noteworthy. Resolute 23:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No offense intended, but there is a Kurdish proverb that says: "If a fool drops a coin into the river, a hundred wise men will never be able to get it out." Similarly, if one editor creates a misleading or inappropriate article that supports the "gypsy" stereotype, a hundred more will never be able to undo the damage by creating articles about similar non-Romanies. If non-Romanies who have done similar things do not have articles on Wikipedia, there's no reason why a Romani should. Just because Desiphral and I object on this basis doesn't mean it is our responsibility to create articles for non-Romanies who have done such things. Obviously we did not cause the article to be misleading! The burden lies on the careless creator of this article, not on those who point out his carelessness. --Kuaichik 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, purely political correctness. It's not about whether she's Romani or not; it's about whether the facts are true.--Prosfilaes 07:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
So it isn't even known whether the facts are true! In that case, why should this article exist? If it isn't about whether she's Romani, why is she (apparently) the only panhandler to have her own article on Wikipedia? --Kuaichik 00:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
She's not: Bampfylde Moore Carew, Ryan Larkin. Dl2000 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
These articles only support the fact that Margita Bangova's biography is not worthy a wiki article, except the desire for enforcing anti-Romani stereotypes. In these examples, both persons were actively involved in presenting and creating their image (compare with a tabloid campaingn against an usual beggar) and they really did something worthy to remember. There are not non-Romani articles to compare with Bangova's. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 08:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep seriously, i can't believe this conversation has gone on this long. notable person with several independent sources. nominator doesn't specifically name any wp policy that this article violates. However, this article does need to be cleaned up considerably. The nominator has violated the "assume good faith doctorine." Now, in regards to whether or not this is a 'racist' article or not....plain and simple it doens't matter. subject is notable and therefore gets an article. END OF STORY. it clearly states in wp policy that an article (like this) which has POV problems should be tagged as such and hopefully improved. That has been done. END OF STORY. nothing else needs to happen. someone either improves this or not. The arguments about this perpetuating racism etc. are not lost on me at all, so don't bother trying to explain them. i see your point, but ultimately it does not matter, whether this person is notably for something good or something bad, it should be included. if the nominator can find good sources for the claim that the man at the toronto sun is a racist and what not, that SHOULD be included and MUST be included. until then....sorry, give it up. Barsportsunlimited 00:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
No, this isn't the end of the story. In 1990, a Romani woman and her daughter were given a sentence of more than 200 years for cheating a client out of thousands of dollars in New York. In the same week, a (non-Romani) televangelist in Atlanta cheated the public out of millions of dollars and was released after just a few days. To uphold this article is like saying that we should create an article about the lady in New York without pointing towards the stereotyping, no?
"...several independent sources" Really? Where? All I see is the Toronto Star, which is just one tabloid.
"nominator doesn't specifically name any wp policy that this article violates." Yes, he does. Read his first and last comments on this page!
"The nominator has violated the 'assume good faith doctorine.'" OK, I'll admit I can't address this point too strongly. Let me just say that I wouldn't accuse him of this, if I were you. When he called Hayden5650 a "vandal," I thought maybe he was going too far, but no, he was proven to be right.
You say it doesn't matter whether this article is racist or not just because it's notable? So does that mean we can include articles on "low Negro IQ," or "gypsy swindling," or "Jewish cheating," or "why all Indians are either doctors or engineers"? Of course not, because none of these are true, even though they are all notable stereotypes. The evidence that the information in this article is true is weak.
"subject is notable and therefore gets an article." Actually, this is disputed, too. See the comment two votes above yours, as well as the response to the vote before that.
"if the nominator can find good sources for the claim..." Again, why should he find good sources? He never added that claim to the article. He has only posted that claim on this talk page. Whether there are sources to prove this or not is not really the point here. The point is, this article has no reliable sources and is potentially quite harmful to an already under-represented ethnicity. --Kuaichik 01:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we do have articles on the topics you mention. Check out Category:Stereotypes for a list. We even have articles that discuss racist canards (e.g., Category:Antisemitic canards), which is what you allege the coverage of Bangová to be. If you can provide any published sources claiming or proving that Bangová is a scapegoat for anti-gypsy sentiment, then you can add it to a category on anti-gypsy canards. —Psychonaut 02:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you claiming again that the responsibility lies upon me to find more sources? The article only includes a few sources, practically all of which espouse the same POV and are all from Toronto. --Kuaichik 00:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There is enough coverage in reliable sources to write a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. Since the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the topic is Wikipedia notable. The facts in the article are interconnected to each other, so the article does not come across as an indiscriminate collection of information. As for BLP concerns, any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person under summary deletion if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant BLP policy. This has not been done and other BLP concerns can be taken care of by fixing the article or through other Wikipedia processes. Thus, I believe Keep is appropriate. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, just because the Toronto Sun is widely published doesn't make it a reliable source. I repeat, it is a tabloid by admission of the creator of the article. And how do you know "there is enough coverage...to write a neutral and unbiased" article? There is no evidence of that in the article; all of the sources are biased toward the same opinion. And the articles available online are very editorial in style as well. --Kuaichik 00:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
And the references from CTV News, CBC, CityPulse and eye weekly? Are they are unreliable sources? Ground Zero | t 01:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention the story was picked up by the Canadian Press, printed by the Regina Leader-Post, and likely other papers outside Toronto. Dl2000 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I never said the rest are unreliable sources, as far as the reliability of the publication itself goes. The CityPulse articles, as I noted earlier, are editorial in style. They are not the kind of article you would find in a standard newspaper (outside of the editorial section). The CTV News article is based on the articles from the Sun. The CBC article is very vague and got some of its information from the Sun also. And the Eye Weekly article is actually criticizing the coverage; it is no source to justify the existence of this article. And finally, as for the story being "picked up" by national news agencies - exactly. It was picked up from the Sun, a tabloid that is cited in the article as the primary source. (Not only that, but the author of a good many of the sources is the same!!) --Kuaichik 03:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It is the Wikipedia article that needs to be unbiased. The sources do not need to be online to be Wikipedia reliable. The topic spans at least from 2002 to 2007, giving it more of a long-term historical notability. If the topic really is a BLP problem, an admin can deleted even after this AfD as I noted above. Other BLP problems can be handled by editing the article or posting at BLPN if outside intervention is needed. WP:BLP seems to permit an article on a person who is only notable for one or two events so long as the article is not sensationalist or titillating and does not include every detail to the point where it can lead to problems. In fact, rather than delete the article, WP:BLP suggest that, when in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. I don't know if I have "the right answer", but I'm trying my best to apply all these new process items as best as I can. -- Jreferee (Talk) 21:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I never said the sources needed to be online. I simply referred to some of the sources, which happened to be online. And in fact, my point is that those online sources are not reliable, not on the basis of whether they're online or not but on the basis of how editorial they are.
"The topic spans at least from 2002 to 2007..." Maybe, but only sporadically, right? If I understood correctly, she only appeared in Canadian newspapers every now and then within that period; it seems there was no steady coverage on her.
BLP also suggests that when in doubt, "the rule of thumb should be 'do no harm.'" This appears to be doing harm to the Romani editors of Wikipedia and the Romani people, as it encourages a stereotype. None of them have shown support for the article on this page; admittedly, there are very few.
BLP continues: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid" like the main source of this article. --Kuaichik 02:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong speedy delete: Besides notability issue (the largest and oldest hospital of Nepal called Bir Hospital was not considered to be noteworthy by gnomes here, just for the records), I think that mentioning her to be a Roma and East European aids for the "stereotypical" mindset. If the article is to stay (which I strongly oppose), I would like to request the people involved in editing the article to remove the lines about her ethnicity and Eastern European background which has nothing to do with Eastern Europe or her begging. Thank you. --Eukesh 15:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Psychonaut, you seem to have this strange idea that if someone believes the article should be deleted, they should improve the article. That makes no sense! How can anyone advocate the deletion of an article to which they have contributed? The point is that the very basis of this article is faulty, therefore it cannot be fixed simply by editing and must be deleted. --Kuaichik 02:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion: Racism vs. Political Correctness aside, I'm not sure this is a good article to keep. Please read these exerpts from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When writing about a person who is only notable for one or two events, including every detail, no matter how well-sourced, can lead to problems.
  • Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip, much of it false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopedic article on that subject.
  • For example, Category:Criminals should only be added if the incident is relevant to the person's notability; it has been published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. (I don't think the article suggests that Bangova has been convicted of fraud, or even charged, yet the article is categorized as Category:Confidence tricksters. This is quite possibly libelous.)

So essentially, this woman is not particularly notable. Any notability she has is from a sensationalized newspaper (while other media simply repeated the story) and not from any actual charges, court cases, or so on. Once the confidence tricksters category is removed, she will simply be a "person from toronto" and a "Romani person."

Please not that, on her talk page, someone early on who supported the article noted: "OMG! I can't believe there is actually an article on Wikipedia about "Shakey Lady"! I hope this article will expose her con to the entire world!" This shows both disbelief that the article could be considered encyclopedic, and clear personal POV. Anyway, that's my two cents. - TheMightyQuill 02:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: User:Psychonaut voted for delete on another AfD about a Romani person, an important contemporary Romani activist. Why that person should not have an article and this one should have? The stereotypes and the prejudices prevail? Because of the Romani ethnicity, the beggar remains and the activist is out? Just compare the biographies of these two persons. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You're linking to an autobiographical article that has no solid editors voting to keep; you, for instance, haven't voted to keep, at least to as of the point I was writing this. And activists are boring; a list of mailing lists and organizations doesn't a notable individual make. We don't have a lot of activists for the same reasons we don't have a lot of CEOs and business people; they may make the world run, but they don't make for interesting reading. Flashy con artists, on the other hand, tend to be more interesting.--Prosfilaes 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Flashy con artists are more interesting for the ones who want the Roma to be seen as "Flashy con artists" and not as equal citizens and neighbours. Stereotyping of ethnicity is not a positive trend and I hope that this respected on-line encyclopedia will not encourage such views. Valery novoselsky — Valery novoselsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree RomanyChaj — RomanyChaj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
So do I. By the way, Prosfilaes, Desiphral had voted to keep the article, even before you made your post; look at the link he gave above. And Wikipedia is not about what you find boring or interesting; it is about what is, in fact, worthy of being documented in an encyclopedia.
I don't know about the notability of the Roma Virtual Network or Novoselsky Valery, because I have never looked at the Roma Virtual Network. Therefore, I will mind my own business and keep my nose out of it (provided I do not get to know it better, for whatever reason). --Kuaichik 02:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
An encyclopedia should have articles that people want to look up; that is, which are interesting. From another angle, Wikipedia should be WP:Verifiable, and to be verifiable, you have to be interesting enough to be written about. There's quite a few books written about con-artists, but a book gets written about a activist only when violent acts are done by or to them.--Prosfilaes 13:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
To remain respected, we must continue to cover things that are verifiable and notable, and not things that are politically correct. It does not help Wikipedia at all to ignore things because the Roma (or any other group) don't like them.--Prosfilaes 13:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well, different people want to look up different things. Different people consider different things interesting; preferences vary. Those involved in Romani Studies may want to know what the Rom Virtual Network is, or what its creator has done.
Con artists of this kind do not typically earn encyclopedia entries, so neither should this Margita Bangová. There is some (not much) evidence that the reports from The Sun are verifiable and very little evidence that Bangová is notable. --Kuaichik 16:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. She is remembered at least in the Czech Republic. A TV documentary (where she claimed how easy life she has now and that the others should follow her) had prompted a large flow of Roma from the Czech Republic to Canada (about 1500 in total). Canada almost immediatelly reacted with enforcing a strict visa requirement for all citizens of the Czech Republic (1998) and the visa status remains valid until today (at least into 2009). It is described e.g. in Washington Post article. Similar event (such a claims in a TV programme) occured later in Great Britain. Pavel Vozenilek 03:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you and some other Czechs remember her. How about Czech Romanies? Do they remember any such thing? This is not a strong argument to support keeping this article. --Kuaichik 03:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Those ~1,500 people probably do remember (most had returned or have been returned). Pavel Vozenilek 04:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
"Probably" is not enough to save this article. --Kuaichik 04:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the situation is: she had appeared on TV Nova, what she said was a starting point for what made a significant impact on the whole Czech Republic (perceived until today) and her name and her role is quite recognizable (as well as role of Josef Klima, the TV reporter who later shot similar scene bringing Britain on edge of visa requirement). How much more do you need? Pavel Vozenilek 04:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
A ton. Just because she appeared on one TV report in a country notorious for anti-Romani riots doesn't mean she is notable enough, or that this article is not simply based on antiziganism (whether this happened intentionally or not I can't say), or that any of the other concerns that have been voiced here have been adequately addressed. --Kuaichik 05:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
While the discussion goes off-topic: on area of the Czech Republic there has been no etnically motivated riots since the end of the WW2 because of high ethnical homogenity of the country. What constitutes anti-Romany is a question of opinion, but the country allocates about 2% of GDP as direct social payments for them (totally ~20% of GDP goes to direct social payments), in addition to resources for education, housing (by municipalities) and grant based system for social integration. Pavel Vozenilek 12:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
So she prompted the movement of 1500 people by an appearence on TV in the Czech Republic, prompting a change in Candian law, and repeatedly appeared in Candian newspapers, and this international notority and reaction isn't notable? What does it matter whether Czech has had ethnically motivated revolts or not?--Prosfilaes 13:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Discussion: I don't believe she was the focus of the documentary, simply one rom interviewed among many. She was among a number of Roma living in Canada that claimed there was less racism in Canada against Roma (most Canadians could not identify someone as Roma) which caused the increase in emigration, a number of czech towns to offer to buy Roma flights to Canada, and then a change in Canadian immigration law (partly at the request of some prominent Roma activists). Simply appearing as an interviewee doesn't make you notable. I would be very surprised if a substantial number of czechs can actually remember her name. Certainly, no one that I met during the year I lived in Prague ever talked about her to me. - TheMightyQuill 15:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is suggesting that her appearance in the documentary alone makes her notable, though along with all the other references it does support the claim that she is notable. And as long as we're contributing anecdotal evidence, when I was last in Prague one of the residents did indeed mention her to me by name. But whether any one Czech person knows her is hardly evidence of her notability one way or another. —Psychonaut 15:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
To Pavel Vozenilek and Prosfilaes: The claim that there have been no ethnically "motivated riots since the end of WW2" in the Czech Republic is false; there are plenty of news reports to prove that wrong, and the existence of blatantly anti-Romani riots in the Czech Republic (and generally in eastern Europe) up to this day (or at least quite recently) is quite well known among experts in Romani Studies such as Prof. Ian Hancock. But anyway, since you currently find this off-topic, I will not dwell on it here and now. As for the issues mentioned by Prosfilaes: first of all, the only evidence provided of the figure 1500 is from a mere Internet daily called Britské listy.
Second, just because she appeared once on TV in the Czech Republic, in addition to appearing in a Canadian tabloid (and subsequently in some other newspapers), doesn't mean she has "international notority"; you can see for yourself that there are users even from Canada on this page who do not consider her notable! She has been mentioned in three countries (namely, Canada, Czech Republic, and the US); this does not give her "international notority."
Third, you have no evidence that she was the cause of any change in Canadian law. Other than maybe said Czech Internet daily.
Fourth, it is very important to consider that the Czech Republic (or Czechoslovakia between WW2 and the dissolution of Czechoslovakia) has a long history of anti-Romani riots. The anti-Romani discrimination in such countries makes antiziganism all the easier, so any report that supports the "gypsy" stereotype is quite suspect. --Kuaichik 15:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Psychonaut, thank you for admitting that anecdotal hearsay is not good evidence. --Kuaichik 15:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The figure is from The Globe and Mail, the web page is a Czech translation of the text. Pavel Vozenilek 17:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I do remember the documentary (it was aired few times afterwards). The TV in mention is TV Nova, a sensationalist and the most watched in the Czech Republic at the time. The documentary pictured life of immigrated Roma in rose colors (compared to the life in the Czech Republic, which was in an economic slump at the time) and the interview by Barghova did confirm its message. She talked how great life she has there and invited "Fero" (a relative) to move as well. Within days the news spread out and hundredths of people called Canadian embassy and prepared to leave. They bought up all airplane tickets into Montreal and Toronto and sold out their properties. The TVs pictured leaving groups almost daily, foreign minister shuttled back and forth, president Havel had a speech asking them to stay. An overview of the events until visa requirement was established is here (in Czech). I cannot find the video itself, TV Nova keeps documentaries online only since 2002. Later, Bangova was mentioned in Czech newspapers in March 2002, referring to a scandal shown by Strobel. Pavel Vozenilek 17:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. As Psychonaut has stated above, that documentary alone does not make her notable. --Kuaichik 20:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Besides, surely you don't actually believe that the appearance of one beggar-woman in a documentary alone caused more than a thousand people to leave. I can believe that this woman appeared in a documentary, I can believe that a lot of Romanies wanted or even tried to leave the Czech Republic (though I doubt that many were successful even in getting a passport and/or boarding the plane), and in fact, I can even believe that this story became popular among some Czechs. But it seems quite odd to even suggest that these events are interconnected! Plus, if TV Nova is a sensationalist source, it is not reliable by Wikipedia standards. --Kuaichik 21:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
She became the symbol and a something as "personified trigger" for the medially visible initial mass move (the causes are much deeper; on a small scale Roma emigration existed before, with some success). The exodus had continued in waves until 2004 (entry into EU) targeting Britain (most often) and during different periods Belgium, Scandinavia and Ireland. Pavel Vozenilek 14:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
What evidence do you have of any link between her and the emigration of Czech Romanies? In fact, what evidence do you have even to show that she became a "symbol" of any sort? How do you know that this isn't just a link conveniently imagined by non-Romanies, just because she was sensationalized in the Canadian press as well? --Kuaichik 04:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Being once (or a few times) in a newspapper does not make one person notable. WP is an encyclopedia, not a newspapper. - Nabla 01:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Heh, heh...:) --Kuaichik 23:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with Resolute, news"worthy" is not notable, this is an attack article, and shameful that it has lasted this long. Murderbike 21:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment From WP:BLP1E "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." My vote to delete is already above. Trugster 23:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep while BLP does mandate against "attack pages" or "disparaging pages", this is generally much more strictly applied to people who are victims rather than people who deliberately set out to do things, like killers, theives and con artists. Margita set out deliberately to commit fraud - and the impact of it on Canuck-Czech relations is what elevates it from "newsworthy" to "encyclopaedic". The article is neutral and well sourced - that she choose to do things that cast her in a negative light is her own choice. The nonsense that this is somehow a Gypsy attack page can be safely disregarded - almost everyone in Toronto knows who she is - I doubt many know she's a Gypsy (I certainly didn't). Again, her influence on Canada-Czech Republic relations is the primary cause of what makes her enyclopaedic, rather than newsworthy, although her influnce (which isn't documented here) on attitudes towards beggers in Hogtown probably would qualify too if sourcable. Furthermore, BLP doesn't mandate that a page which neutrally and fairly documents someone's misdeeds is unacceptable to Wikipedia. Charles Manson, for instance, will never be speedied per BLP, but is very similiar in that it fairly documents someone's unsavoury behaviour. WilyD 18:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, she has not been convicted of fraud, and any evidence against her is from a tabloid newspaper journalist. She quite likely IS a con-artist, but evidence is pretty slim. Strobel watched her for an hour, estimated how much she was earning, THEN extrapolated (from his own estimation) how much she must earn in a week... all from one hour of observation. That's certainly not reasonable evidence, and pretty mediocre journalism, if you ask me. So if she hasn't been convicted, and we can't prove she's a con-artist, the negative light comes from Strobel and Wikipedia, not from her own actions. You seem to have already made up your mind about her, but that's still just your POV, and not a reasonable source. Her influence on Toronto's attitudes towards beggars WAS included, but removed specifically because it is unsourced (and likely, unsourceable). Every city has a couple "famous" street people, but i'm not sure that means they all deserve articles. - TheMightyQuill 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Not convicted is an interesting point, but the article doesn't (as far as I can see) actually say she did these things - it does a reasonable job of making it clear who's alledging what. Convictions, after all, don't actually mean you did the thing either. While I might be a little skeptical at taking the Sun's word on some things at face value, or even covering something that appeared solely in the Sun, the further coverage from the CBC, Citypulse, the Star and even the consul statements put together a much bigger picture. My own recollection from the time when she was a top headline in the news is that the evidence is far more damning than your interpretation here, but I didn't particularly care, so I may be mistaken. I wouldn't be surprised if you could source the influence of these events on attitudes in Toronto towards the homeless, I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't. As long as you can't, leave it out. But her influence on international relations is sourced. WilyD 19:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure, not being convicted doesn't prove one is definitely innocent, but we're not talking about the OJ Simpson trial here. =) She was neither convicted, nor charged, nor even subject to any police investigation for fraud, as far as I've read. The other media coverage that I read simply referred to Mike Strobel's article, rather than investigating the matter themselves, so how does that suggest the journalism is reputable? Strobel himself doesn't even have an wikipedia article, and I'm sure he's been mentioned in far more papers than Bangova. The effect of the Czech documentary on Roma in Canada is certainly well documented (not that anyone has bothered to create an article about that, either) but she is one of many interviewees in that documentary. It is not a documentary about Bangova. I have no doubt that the Strobel articles you read at the time seemed to suggest the evidence was far more damning, but that's exactly why you shouldn't be reading tabloids. =) Again, it's quite possible that she is a con-artist, but unlike the people from Bre-X who WERE investigated, she's neither a major con-artist, nor particularly ingenious. Toronto is undoubtedly full of people who hold up signs asking for money for food, only to spend the enormous amounts of money they collect on drugs instead. Why is Bangova more important than they are? Because she shakes instead? Come on... - TheMightyQuill 00:26, 27 June 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.