Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel S. Peña Sr. (2nd nomination)

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. JForget 00:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel S. Peña Sr.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Attack page. Some editors are just finding as much dirt as they can on the subject. This is breaching Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. This article has a long history of NPOV issues since it began. It started as a puff piece then became a character assassination. Countless attempts have been made to make the article neutral with little success. It has been deleted before. This article is not a reliable source of material for an encyclopedia and does not reflect well on the good faith of the Wikipedia community. BLP issues. Neutral point of view (NPOV)/No original research - editors have strong coi. An active editor admitted he was a writer doing a piece on Pena. Some editors using scans which may violate copyright violations. Verifiability - poor sources. numerous citations used are not relevant to subject. Notability - weak sources to prove notability.Cablespy (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is not an attack page. When you go through the history, you will see that all facts have been properly source, at least the ones I added. It's just a sad truth that nothing of the positive claims can be proven or sourced, however a lot of shady dealings came to the light. No matter how hard you search, there is nothing positive that he didn't say or write himself to be found. I am a professional journalist, the editor who was commissioned to write a real world article for a British newspaper about Pena. However, when I started doing the research, it happened that nothing positive could be proven and a lot of dirt came up. There is nothing bad about disclosing that; and it's sure as hell not a COI - it's simply the fact that I got access to a number of sources and put them out there. However, you and your friends have constantly been deleting those properly sourced facts and never added any positive fact with source. Also some of the scans published via scribd.com come directly from the guy/you, who else would have access to those?--Esinclair52 (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep there does seem be be some POV wording, and the implication should be made clearer, eg "claims" should be counteracted with claims to the opposite effect. If indeed there is too much dirt the page can be protected. However the dirt that is there now seems to be valid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agree with the KEEP, if there is anything positive, put it in and source it. Neutral cannot mean to delete everything that sounds bad if the guy doesn't like it when there are proper sources.--Esinclair52 (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this article is kept it would be nice to have a bunch of extra eyes on the article as it's being edited by editors from both sides, almost all of whom appear to be SPAs with a COI. I try to keep an eye on it, but I don't have as much experience with policy (especially WP:BLP) as could be, and this article is turning into a battleground (if a mostly good-natured one), pretty much. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 12:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is wrong to speak of sides here. WP has the claim to be somehow an encyclopedia. For that it is important that all published facts are sourced. If no positive sources can be found, but many negative come up, is one supposed to not mention them? All facts I put in, I have sourced perfectly. I spent hours to find sources for positive facts, but with no success. Just because I have information that is fine according to WP's standards but not liked by the subject, doesn't make me have a conflict of interest. I never deleted any positive fact. Truth is, however, that there was never an objective proof for anything the subject claims. On the contrary. There are a lot more facts that cannot even be put into WP, because they cannot be sourced, such as for example if you call the property register about "his" castle and his name is nowhere to appear (I agree, it can be held through a company) or when he claims to be member of certain clubs and restaurants (like in the original puff piece) and when you call there, they don't know him etc. - again: facts with sources should be in and not constantly deleted by subject's friends. A battleground would further more be a place where parties fight about something. Here's nothing to argue about: if there are ANY positive facts, come on forward, put them and source them and stop just deleting what you don't like.--Esinclair52 (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dreaded Walrus is correct. It has turned into a battleground. The subject of the article is being attacked constantly. Every positive detail is being challenged. Disproportionate space has been given under the controversy section, particularly Canada, including every detail leading to an unencyclopedic article and violates NPOV policy.Cablespy (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see which positive details WITH SOURCES you put into the article. All your activity shows is the attempts to delete or hide or confuse the properly sourced controversial facts about him. He is making a myth out of him and a business out of that, where is little or no substance.--Esinclair52 (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove comments of other users, as you did here. (Also, you forgot to add this page to the log, per WP:AFDHOWTO step three. Without adding it there, very few people are going to come across this discussion). Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was an accident.Cablespy (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep there are other ways to deal with edit wars, than deletion. the "negative press" provides reliable sources for notability (doubt notable without them) Pohick2 (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You don't delete an article which can be fixed. The guy gets plenty of news coverage, so he is notable. If you believe there is a problem, discuss it on the talk page, and then look for a page where people discuss slanderous attacks on biography pages, there a discussion group dedicated to looking into that, and acting on it. Dream Focus 02:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. In particular the canada section is over-detailed, and does seem to go out of its way to find negative quotes. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a living person which may already be being subject to harm. The subject is not a public figure whose notability is produced in mainstream news. The subject may be notable enough for an entry, but not generally well known. Restraint is not being used on material irrelevant to his notability which may cause adverse effects on his reputation. There are parts which are not written conservatively which keep being reverted even after cleanup. The Canada section,as an example, which is given disproportionate space and POV wording. Ludlom (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting a page because of alleged behaviour by editors is not what Wikipedia is about. We'd have no article on Jesus, Mohammed, Israel or any religious or sex subject. I seem to remember changing my mind from delete to keep during the last AfD for this, when the article ceased to be puff and became more interesting. I agree with DGG that some fixing needs to be done. To those who see libellous material here, find something that proves it is and put it on the table. Peridon (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus and Mohammed are not living persons. It is not uncommon for high profile people to be the target of lawsuits. He already won against the GWR case and was recently cleared of the India case yet some editors keep pushing negative press as his point of notability which is not the case. A simple google search would not even pullup those negative sources in the first page (i've searched up to page 5 no results). As mentioned in the discussion, the Canada section keeps being expanded and has the longest paragraph in the whole article. Including every detail, even well sourced material, can lead to an unencyclopedic article and shows issues on WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.Cablespy (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - substitute George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden and whoever the current England Football manager is. I just picked names that were controversial subjects. Peridon (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record Cablespy and Ludlom appear to both be new SPAs - taking an article to AfD is uncommon for a new account. Esinclair52 has edited at least one other article, but has mainly focussed on this one for some time. (I edit all sorts of things....) Peridon (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject appears to be clearly notable. Agree with Peridon that we should not delete an article just because the subject is controversial, or because of an editing war. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Keep. Notability is established by sources. Problem articles about notable topics should be fixed, not deleted. - Eastmain (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.