Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Schwartz (journalist)

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Schwartz (journalist)

While on a notable subject, this page has proven unmaintainable, attracting many edits by detractors in more or less open attempts to smear the subject, and resulting in a libel claim (and needed a libel claim to clean up).

Unless and until someone turns up who is willing to take responsibility for this page, wikipedia is better off without it. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• I second deleting this article. As Gertrude Stein said, "There's no there, there." And frankly, this person isn't worthy of an encyclopedia article. GriotGriot

• Strong Keep Notable, gets an entry. Period. Requiring a page to have a 'babysitter' just to exist is absolute bollocks. If it's that upsetting to the regular contributors, get an admin involved, agree on a version and protect, or similer. But 'controversial' is not a criterion for deletion. -AKMask 00:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There's been no shortage of admin's involved: Jimbo, Ambi, Splash. Noone wants to take responsibility for it, though. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 02:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

These things are not for one person to take control of. It's a community effort. Find an admin willing to help and beat an article out. Compromise, work. Thats what it took with some of the articles I've worked on. We all have that tough one. -AKMask 02:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I find Schwartz interesting, but I don't care enough to get involved again. It's not my tough one. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 03:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The libel claim result was to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and to say that the article is on a "notable subject" (nom's words) and yet call for it to be deleted is, frankly, ludicrous. And Griot, inconvenience isn't a grounds for deletion; officially, de facto, or even reasonably. --Calton | Talk 01:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)'

• • Delete Inconvenience might be grounds in this case. Have you looked through the Talk archives? This article is a tangle of thorns. No admin would take it on. The extremely hostile subject himself has visited Wiki and threatened a libel suit. Will one of you take it on? The article is doomed to remain a stub. Unless you can find a Hercules admin to take it on, it's going to have to go or remian still born. Griot 02:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Griot

Griot, I urge you to read our Wikipedia:Deletion_policy and have a look for yourself. There are no 'case-by-case' issues. There is a listing there of things that do not require deletion, such as inaccuracy, and things that do require it. Inconveniance is not listed anywhere near that list. I urge you to read the relevent policies and guidelines first. And if he's accusing us of libel, and we see that we are guilty of that behavior, then change it. If he just wants a nice, positive article with no negatives, he can go jump in a lake. Libel is much tougher to prove then most people think. Reporting on someones opinions is not grounds. See Daniel Brandt. -AKMask 02:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Unmaintainability is not listed as an official ground for deletion, but is a widely made and respected ground for deletion on *fD and DRV. That's the basis for my nom. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 03:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Unmaintainability", when it's brought up, always has to do with overly large size and scope. And "unmaintainability" is not a synonym for "inconvenient", attempts to elide the two notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 11:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A page is unmaintainable whenever the work needed to keep the page in order overwhelms the forces at hand. There are a number of reasons that may be the case: here it's because there is noone willing to put in the work necessary to grasp the subject well enough to recognise and combat the repeated efforts to distort and smear the article that it will receive. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 15:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep he has books, articles, and an organization --Ruby 02:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Are either of the strong keeps willing to help put the page in order? --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 02:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• I would not be, I dont get involved with political articles. I focus on Scientology, Tropical Cyclones, and some vandal control. A smattering of others, but nothing media/political related. -AKMask 02:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• You might just as well ask whether we're left-handed or vegetarian for all the relevance that question has to the actual issue at hand. --Calton | Talk 11:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• It's entirely relevant: if someone competent were to volunteer

• Keep. Check Wikipedia:Deletion policy for what can get deleted, and why. This article doesn't qualify. That means that it can't be deleted; deletion policy is policy. In particular, difficulty in maintaining an article's verifiability or NPOV is not grounds for deletion. Rather, it is grounds for improving the article via consensus editing. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, bear in mind that Jimbo's last action with regard to this page was to deprotect it and encourage that future contributions be sourced. That suggests to me that he didn't want it deleted; after all, if he had judged it best that the article be deleted, it was certainly in his power to do so. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I wish he hadn't deleted the history, beacuse now no one can go back and see if any of it was salvagable. Yes, I'm sure it might be difficult, but like the kid digging through a huge pile of horseshit because there must be a pony in there somewhere, I'm optimistic. --Calton | Talk 11:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep he's notable, and we're stuck with it. Adrian Lamo ·· 05:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Three things:

  1. The page is unmaintainable for no other reason than the fact that (i) there are a number of people who want to use the article to push POV and defamation, and (ii) nobody wants to do the hard work of understanding the issues around Schwartz so that they can look after the article. Uninformed editors looking out for the page has not worked in the past, it will not work in the future.

  2. If someone competent turns up who would be willing to do the work necessary to fill the roile I described, great. Then the case for the AfD would vanish and we could look forward to having a decent article on Schwartz.

  3. Jimbo would like us to have a decent article on Schwartz, but he knows about my plans to put forward this AfD and has not objected to it. There's some kudos for anyone willing to look after the article. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 15:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, check Wikipedia:Deletion policy for a concise review of community consensus on grounds for deletion. This article in no way qualifies, and certainly not because of any of the three points above.-ikkyu2 (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — More than sufficiently notable. I tried to add some PoV-neutral content. Feel free to expand. :-) — RJH 18:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Schwartz obviously merits a page here and the article is not too bad as it stands. I would just disallow blogs/minor news organizations as a source for links or references (perhaps eliminating the external links section completely). It's on my watchlist and I'm sure after this AfD many editors will be watching the page. -- JJay 18:13, 17 February 2006 (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.