Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitch Modeleski

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. --Coredesat 04:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mitch Modeleski

Mitch Modeleski (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is another of those hated WP:BLP messes. (We can thank Jimbo for starting a terrible precedent with Alan Dershowitz, but I'll leave that discussion for some other time.) The article used to look like this, but in the face of edit warring, an administrator was forced to protect the page and convert it into a stub. Now there's a debate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Paul Andrew Mitchell (the same person), and someone said, take the article to AFD, it's only one sentence long anyway, and then the talk page will fall automatically. I thought, great idea! The only complication is that this wasn't always one sentence long. Regardless, I believe that keeping the BLP in any form may cause more trouble than it's worth.

To be clear: I make no judgment about the fellow's notability. I just think that with certain articles - the Bogdanov affair comes to mind - it may be better to have no article than a controversial article. I'm willing to get a "speedy keep" thrown at this if only to make sure it's been considered. Shalom ^Hello 09:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Looking back on the article's history, there don't appear to be any references that confirm the subject's notability. If all he's done is to file a frivolous lawsuit against AOL, I don't think that makes him notable. If he's done anything else to make him notable, the article should say what that is. Even if we revert to one of the non-stub versions, that information isn't there. Tevildo 11:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I think that the nominator (Shalom) should state explicitly whether or not they support deletion of this article; it's not clear from the nomination. Tevildo 11:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  Response Great question, Tevildo. I Googled the fellow's name, and the first hit (ahead of Wikipedia!) was Wikitruth.info's archive of the "uncensored" version. Let's use that as a starting point if we decide to restore the article. I would want to rewrite the last two paragraphs to soften the tone. Looking at the references, it's clear that this fellow has earned an underground following, but just about everyone knows he's a crazy idiot. Here we enter the intersection of notability and neutral point of view. I think notability, as an independent baseline, is satisfied in the Wikitruth version - there are multiple, nontrivial sources, including a full article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, describing this fellow's activity. However, when you analyze what he is advocating, you realize that his theories are cultic conspiracy bollocks accepted by nobody with a brain inside his skull. So I'd suggest that the "undue weight" clause of WP:NPOV overrides the bare minimum of notability. In the sea of human knowledge, this guy barely qualifies as a twig of seaweed. Shalom ^Hello 13:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I checked that reference from our history; I'm still not convinced that it makes him notable (as opposed to his lawsuit being verifiable). There are many ways that self-published authors attempt to gain publicity - this may be one of the more original methods, but, unless it's propelled his book into regions where it can pass WP:BK, he doesn't deserve an article here. Tevildo 14:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a "weak" delete. I edit fairly heavily in the tax protester-related articles in Wikipedia. The subject of this article is indeed a promoter of Tax protester arguments, and I have been following his "career" (if you will) for some time. On balance, I would say he is somewhat notable, but arguably not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. That of course could always change later. Yours, Famspear 13:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Just to follow up, I opine that tax protesters are a dime a dozen. The main reason I categorize this fellow as not yet notable enough is that he has had, as far as I know, no criminal legal problems. Any fool can file frivolous civil lawsuits. My unofficial main criterion for judging the notability of a U.S. tax protester is: Has this person been prosecuted criminally? Very, very few people are actually prosecuted for Federal tax crimes in the United States. As far as we know, the subject of the article has not been prosecuted criminally. Yours, Famspear 14:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability; being described as a "tax protestor" is not sufficient grounds for inclusion per WP:BIO, as not all tax protestors are inherently notable. The article needs evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Walton^talk 15:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The edit which show at least something is [1] Except for the final sentence, I see no reason why the article in that form would violate BLP, provided a source were found for some of the legal resolutions; and I'm sure a source could be found saying something like that as well. DGG 23:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn person. Carlossuarez46 18:55, 2 July 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.