Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 October 10.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Now, let me explain.

I have evaluated all of the arguments carefully, and each side has raised some very valid points. Seth Finkelstein has been covered by the media in the past. The "delete" arguments said that a "mention" in the New York Times still does not make you notable. The "notability debate" ended with "no consensus". If this were not a living person, I would have closed it as such.

However, Mr. Finkelstein has expressed the desire to have his biography removed. According to the BLP deletion standards, the closer of the deletion debate should take into account the wishes of the subject if the subject is on the fringe of notability. Mr. Finkelstein's concerns are very valid; a Wikipedia article is a prime target for trolls who want to anonymously defame the subject. Now that Wikipedia has become one of the highest-visited sites on the Internet, we have to take into account that things said on Wikipedia articles can and will affect the subject's life. We've seen this happen before; only recently, a professor was detained in an airport because his Wikipedia biography falsely stated that he had ties to a terrorist group. These articles are about real people, not just some fictional video game character. Editors need to realize, if they haven't done so already, that Wikipedia is not a game. Biographies of living persons are not something to be taken lightly.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I closed this debate as delete. Keep in mind that this was in no way unilateral, that I did not come into this debate with a decided mind. I read the discussion, read the policy, and made a decision based on all arguments raised. Sean William @ 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Finkelstein[edit]

Per changes at WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards, I request that the community expand the precedent of courtesy deletions to a slightly wider scope: these examples aren’t world leaders and both of them have expressed to me by e-mail that they would rather not be the subject of a Wikipedia article.

Bear in mind that some of the information Wikipedia publishes about these people comes from small presses and date from an era before either this site or the Internet existed. To paraphrase one appeal, the individual expected to wrap his fish in those papers the next day and certainly didn’t anticipate how those bits of information could be collected and assembled a few keystrokes away for anyone on the planet.

With respect for the editors who’ve contributed these pages, it’s always been my belief that ethical decisions where good people disagree should be placed in the hands of the people who live with the consequences. No one could have more at stake in this request than these articles’ subjects. We ask notable people not to edit their own articles; we insist that they don’t own the content and we stand by other site policies. On a human level – setting any personal antipathies aside – it’s fair that we extend one courtesy in return: although Wikipedia is not paper, some living people who began their careers in the era of paper publishing and prefer to lead relatively private lives.

I ask the community to replace these two pages with a template to the effect of “deleted per request of the article subject”, then Oversight the history and page protect, with equivalent action for the respective talk pages. I also ask we extend a similar courtesy in the future toward living persons who may be notable, but are neither celebrities nor criminals. Durova^Charge! 21:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, SqueakBox 01:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. Just because a few policy junkies have taken it upon themselves to make BLP more strict or try to enforce their view of it more strictly doesn't change anything. --Gwern (contribs) 01:09 10 June 2007 (GMT)

Er, if the policy itself has changed then surely that does make a difference? Orpheus 01:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we do need people to make policy and to not let others make policy in their own image etc, SqueakBox 01:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as before. Meets all relevant policies, enough nonsense already - we're an encyclopedia, not a charity case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Since when is it charity to remove someone of marginal notability from an encyclopedia? Keeping a non-notable would be charitable. 85.1.6.247 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am a something of an inclusionist, who would have in the past sided with Keep in this article. I have become convinced that allowing opt-out of semi-notable BLP subjects is a wiser course.Edivorce 01:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted by a participant in the Allison Stokke AfD, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry..... As with the AfD twinned with this one, the advice applies here. -- Robster2001 01:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move the sourced data elsewhere as per WP:BLP. Keep the data. Lose the troll magnet. WAS 4.250 02:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Ripberger 04:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Badlydrawnjeff writes "we're an encyclopedia, not a charity case". On what planet would an encyclopedia carry an entry on a non-notable like Seth Finkelstein? Right thinking people sign up to write about Christopher Columbus and FDR, not to persecute individuals like Seth Finkelstein. Keep voters should be ashamed.--Oakhouse 06:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My only response would be as to what planet would consider Finkelstein non-notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: You mean upon which planet? Well, he's not sufficiently notable on this one, for starters, to hold him prisoner against his will. For a more formal answer, how long of a list do you want (of planets? Does Pluto count? More importantly, which planet are *you* from?62.202.195.170 16:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Not sure how the article "persecutes" Finkelstein though. Ford MF 08:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Changing to Keep as I have been swayed by the arguments in this and the previous AfD debate, DESiegel, et al. Ford MF 07:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He makes his case here and here. WAS 4.250 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, for reasons I stated in the Daniel Brandt AfD. I've become more sympathetic of late with critics of the Wikipedia "system" due to my battles with the clique that's eager to suppress them (such as with the "BADSITES" proposal I wrote this essay about). I still think he's got some notability in "geek circles" and, like the Shakespearean lady, "doth protest too much" about his article, which doesn't seem harmful or defamatory in any way. In general I'd prefer Wikipedia to have coverage of such figures and topics that matter to computer nerds (if there's gonna be systemic bias, why not have it be in favor of my in-group!), but I'm giving more benefit of the doubt these days to those who say that Wikipedia isn't always so great for everybody, so I'll end up not siding with either side. *Dan T.* 12:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Reliable sources have done biographies or biographical articles on this person.Piperdown 14:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to make it official, for the arguments I've made so many times before. Please note, I don't want to retype them all for yet another discussion. Thanks to the proposer for doing a good deed, and the people above who have linked to the relevant past statements -- Seth Finkelstein 15:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same as AFD before it. SakotGrimshine 15:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --Mantanmoreland 15:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as the subject of the article is of questionable notability and the subject has also expressed his desire for the deletion of the article. Cowman109^Talk 17:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's marginally notable and has said he doesn't want it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per request of the subject. (Although matters like this should be handled by WP:OFFICE.—AL ^FOCUS! 20:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. I completely disagree with this nomination. The idea that we should delete articles on "notable" subjects because someone somewhere doesn't like the coverage is abhorhent. It is typical PC, feel-good thinking run amuck and the sight of many editors patting themselves on the back for their newfound ethicality and love for their fellow man is appalling and revolting. In fact, it is this kind of approach that completely destroys whatever limited integrity wikipedia has built over the years. Perhaps that is the intent. Nevertheless, in the present case, Seth Finkelstein is no Daniel Brandt. Rather, he appears to be a complete non-entity unlikely to rise - despite the laudable attentions of the contributors to this article - to even a minimalist interpretation of wikipedia's "notability" guidelines. --JJay 20:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: by no means do I propose an aggressively PC deletion standard at every Wikipedia article. I do suggest that the subjects of lower-end notability BLP articles be granted more respect when one asks us to delete the particular article about himself or herself. Durova^Charge! 22:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for your remark, but I again disagree. There is no such thing as "lower-end" notability. Per policy and guidelines, topics are either "notable" or they are not "notable" - in the latter case the corresponding articles should generally be deleted. As for the wishes of article subjects concerning the disposition of bio articles, we should be granting equal respect to all article subjects, both living and dead (i.e. through their families). We should be encouraging them to edit their bios and to participate in improving wikipedia. Their opinions as to their proper suitability for a bio article should certainly be taken into consideration. This applies directly to Mr. Finkelstein, who has strenuously argued that he lacks the minimum prominence for a bio article. He wants his article deleted, I assume out of a desire to maintain wikipedia's notability standards. His voice is clearly heard, but it's his astonishing lack of prominence that rules the day and justifies removal of his article. Of course, should Mr. Finkelstein continue to pen articles on society and the world at large, should he actively seek to escape his current obscurity by transforming himself into a voice that matters, then the situation will have changed and Mr. Finkelstein would qualify for inclusion. JJay 14:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If, as you purport, there is no notion of marginal notability, then perhaps annotation to the policy is in order. This being in to offer a "shades of grey" perspective, a la "this is not a digital, but an analog determination". Anyways, he's only on Wikipedia by virtue of the propensity of hi-tech persons on Wikipedia, which doesn't at all represent the overall population of Wikipedia encyclopedia users.

Actually this site has some longstanding precedents for courtesy deletions of borderline notability biographies that would otherwise have survived AFD, per a request for deletion by the article's subject. Now that BLP policy endorses this practice I'm proposing we extend that courtesy toward other living people who aren't notable enough for coverage in traditional paper-and-ink encyclopedias. I think that's reasonable because it wasn't so long ago that neither Wikipedia nor the Internet existed. This isn't a very frequent type of request so fulfilling it would earn goodwill with minimal impact on our database. Honoring this type of request is also, in my opinion, basically the decent thing to do. Durova^Charge! 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep. Thanks to the exchange above I decided to look closer at Mr. Finkelstein's "notability". I had thought that his award was a bit of a joke, until I saw that it earned him a long profile in the New York Times. The Times says: "Mr. Finkelstein has influenced public debate and legal decisions". [1]. He is called an "expert", an "Internet filtering authority" and a "civil-Liberties activist" by a diverse range of news sources including the Washington Post. As an award-winning activist and apparently a leader in his field, Mr. Finkelstein has become a de facto public figure and suitably notable for a biography. Interestingly, Mr. Finkelstein states in his Times profile: "Once you give censors free rein, they go after sex. They go after sex education. They go after feminism. They go after gay rights." He is absolutely correct here. The idea of "courtesy deletions" is part of a slippery slope that leads inexorably to censorship, both oblique and blatant. I'm seeing it everyday, as people use WP:BLP to remove information from wikipedia that they consider unencyclopedic or otherwise distasteful. The self-righteousness and disdain of these self-appointed moral crusaders - Wikipedia's own Mutaween - is sadly not surprising, but still shocking to me. Our policies and guidelines are robust enough to ensure that bios of non-prominent individuals are deleted. Mr. Finkelstein though, is not in that category and this nomination is misguided. --JJay 23:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I treasure my award, but sadly, I can neither eat it, wear it, nor sleep in it. Nor has it converted into anything along those lines. After kilobytes of tedious discussion, I hardly think anything is being censored. Moreover, I'm not trying to suppress or hide anything. Rather, I don't want a "weapon of asymmetric warfare" trained on me all the time. -- Seth Finkelstein 23:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Based on your comment, it would seem that you implicitly recognize that you are suitably "notable" for a bio here - and your article does not appear to have been vandalized since January. Therefore, your "I don't want a bio " argument does not seem particularly compelling to me. I also find it hard to believe that you shun the limelight when you would appear to spend a fair amount of time either writing columns for The Guardian [2] - work that is republished around the world [3] - or sharing your expertise with other journalists [4]. Incidentally, what sort of courtesy opt-out clause do you provide to google, censorware writers and other assorted targets from your ~~weapon of asymmetric warfare~~ articles and public activism? --JJay 00:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Please note I've repeatedly, repeatedly, replied to these arguments. It's potentially harmful to me, and that should be recognized. I'm not a celebrity or someone of great media status, so if I wish to opt-out if at all possible, that should be a reasonable request. It's extremely wearing to have so many people seemingly requiring a long personally typed reply on a repetitive point -- Seth Finkelstein 14:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thank you for personally typing your 65-word comment and I'm sorry you seem to find this debate tiresome. In the interest of repetition, I will restate my previous question: As a Guardian columnist and censorware/google activist, what sort of courtesy opt-out clause do you offer to your subjects of predilection? For example, in your April column entitled "Accusations of sex and violence were bound to grab the headlines", did you ask the bloggers involved if they found your insinuations "potentially harmful"?[5] Or in your March column "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive", did you ask Ryan Jordan if he wanted to opt-out from further coverage of his "flailing as his tangle of lies became undone"?[6]JJay 15:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines arguing over not just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but what dances the angels should be doing, what music should be playing when the angels dance, and whether the heavenly choir is notable only as a group or for individual members. A hypothetical WP:OPTOUT would be no more or less indeterminate than WP:BIO in the first place. The idea that one can't define a workable policy about who could opt-out, is ludicrous.

But somehow, when this topic comes up, a quasi-autistic condition sets in. Like patients with neurological afflictions who cannot distinguish human beings from objects (ala "The Man Who Mistook His Wife From A Hat"), there's a proclamation of the utmost inability to distinguish among any sort of level of notability. No shade of gray is possible, only the starkest black or white.

It is simply absurd, and an annoying smokescreen for the unwillingness to recognize the harms Wikipedia can do. -- Seth Finkelstein 15:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Yes, wikipedia has policies and guidelines for bios/notability and you meet those standards by a wide margin. And while you have singularly failed to demonstrate any harm caused by this entirely neutral article, either real or potential, your award-winning activism and journalistic endeavors continue to make you a valid subject for a bio. I congratulate you for that. Regarding autism, I also congratulate you for completely ignoring my questions, which speak directly to the potential harm caused by your activism/writings. --JJay 16:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hypothetically, possibly, conjecturally, allegedly, harmful at some possible point in the unknown future. Should that be the basis for making policy decisions about it now? It seems like if you accept such lines of reasoning, you can open the way to all sorts of pernicious things, including various forms of censorship (Well, you know, porn | radical politics | information on making explosives | etc. can possibly cause harm to somebody in the future, so you should censor it now!) Anyway, regarding your earlier comments... somebody should encourage EFF to make their future awards edible, wearable, or sleepable-on so future recipients can't question their utility! *Dan T.* 15:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DanT, I've already responded. To paraphrase, it's one thing to give every dog one bite, another to go down the road that the bitten bears the burden of proving against the unwilling "owner" that another bite will happen, that it will break the skin, that there will be infection, and rabies is rare anyway, etc. etc. One bite should be more than sufficient to establish the reasonableness of not wanting that dog around. -- Seth Finkelstein 15:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; See my commentary here, except replace "Daniel Brandt" with "Seth Finkelstein"—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NYTimes thinks he's notable, and the EFF gave him an award. He is now no longer a strictly private figure. He has written an article in the Guardian (cited in this article) "I'm On Wikipedia, Get Me Out of Here" saying essentially that because it was subject to being vandalized, he didn't want it. Anyone at all could say that. In his case there is nothing but positive coverage. But this is an unfair precedent--anyone and everyone with coverage they thought unflattering, but had not actually been convicted of a crime or elected to major public office could ask the same. The result is that WP would become, as far as living figures are concerned, a source of Vanity Biography.

Durova, have you considered this aspect? DGG 00:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the irony makes me smile - an essay about how Mr. Finkelstein wants his biography deleted getting cited as a reason for keeping the biography. I did some research before nominating these biographies and located very few individuals who had a known desire to have their biography pages deleted. If we adopt a paper-and-ink standard for courtesy deletions I doubt there would be a substantial impact on our database. Donald Rumsfeld, for instance, has certainly had his share of bad press but any general purpose encyclopedia would probably include him because of his role in international events. Notorious criminals wouldn't leave our pages either, since those people get indexed in specialty dead-trees encyclopedias. Durova^Charge! 19:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely notable. A mention in the NYT doesn't make him notable, either. -- ChrisO 01:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An 1,100-word NYT profile is hardly a "mention".~[7] JJay 13:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never even heard of this guy before. -Pilotguy hold short 02:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IDONTKNOWIT from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. JJay 13:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable within his field, has been the subject of multiple artilces in major media outlets, has been given an award by EFF (and I'll bet I could find several additional sources). IMO the subject's desire to have or not have a wikipedia aticle should be strictly irrelevant, provided that all content is accurate and fully sourced. Anything else makes us just another Who's Who, which we don't consider a reliable source because entries are at the request of their subjects. And there htere isn't even any negative content. DES ^(talk) 04:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first AfD for answers to this question. I wrote many replies there. I don't want to retype them here. -- Seth Finkelstein 04:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done so. I do not find the arguments made there persuasive. In effect, you complain that although the current article is accurate and in no way defamatory -- indeed it is fairly positive -- the chance that someone could vandalize the article and thereby have liable or defamation be given wikipedia's imprimatur is just too great for you to risk. While there are never any guarantees, I note that the last vandalism was this edit at 14:06, 21 January 2007, reverted in less than 1 minute. The latest previous vandalism was this edit on 10:03, 18 October 2006, also reverted the same minute, and the one before that was this edit on 14:47, 28 September 2006 also reverted the same minute, and before that was this edit at 13:24, 28 September 2006, reverted 1 minute later, and before that this edit at 13:16, 28 September 2006 reverted three minutes later, and before that this edit at 12:14, 28 September 2006 , reverted seven minutes later. All of these are obvious vandalism -- none were at all likely to damage anyone's reputation, or be seen as anything other than vandalism by anyone of sense, and none stayed up for as much as ten minutes. The article has been in a vandalized state for a grand total of less than 20 minutes over the last seven months -- not really horrid quality control. In short, i think you would do better to worry about being struck by lightning. As a matter of policy, i think that whether the subject of an article wants it deleted or not should have pretty close to zero weight in deletion decisions, or if anything a bit of negative weight. That is, a subject who wants an article should have it more likely to be deleted in a close call, and one who does not want an article should have it more likely to be kept in a close call. That is because the person who wants an article may be motivated by vanity, and his or her claims of notability should be looked at more dubiously, while a person who wants an article deleted may want something covered up. now I don't think you are trying to cover anything up here, so I think this article should be governed by our usual standards, and by those I think this is a clear keep. For better or worse, you have entered history in a minor way, and must put up with being recorded as a part of it. To say otherwise is ultimately to say that wikipedia should have no biographical articles at all, because the same reasoning about the risk of vandalism could apply to any of them -- indeed articles about really highly notable figures are vandalized far more often -- look at the edit history of George W. Bush for example, or John Kerry. Indeed, any article could be vandalized at any given moment, so, since inaccurate information is worse than none, the logical conclusion of this argument is that wikipedia should be shut down promptly, as inherently unreliable and a public nuisance. I don't agree. DES ^(talk) 14:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot tell the difference between me, Bush, and Kerry, there is nothing I can say beyond what I've already said too many tiring times. -- Seth Finkelstein 01:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is a justification for a Wikipedia listing, yet notability does not require a Wikipedia annotation. If that were true, this would be a worldwide "who's who", which it is not. And in the case of a living person, who doesnt like the listing - for God's sake, let them live in peace. Not even the entire Board of Wikimedia Directors has a BLP.BCBGchic 05:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User's second edit at wikipedia. [8]. JJay 13:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes WP:BIO and WP:N and it is sourced by reliable sources to boot. I'm getting tired of editors arbitrarily applying their take on our standards to suit their opinion. With these AfDs, our "policies" and "guidelines" are becoming meaningless. --Oakshade 07:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO and WP:N are guidelines which it may or may not easily pass; WP:BLP is policy which is does not easily pass. --Iamunknown 07:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What section of WP:BLP doesn't this pass?Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - See the fourth word of the nomination. Sean William @ 15:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That says they may take the subject's wishes into consideration when closing, not that it's a deletion criterion in itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a tip of the hat to Durova for bringing this to AfD instead of speedy-deleting, and without prejudice towards incorporating the information in other articles. BTW I don't think need to put a template up about this being deleted at the request of the subject.

Seth's words from a few months ago have stuck in my mind: something to the effect of, "You've done some good things, so here is your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life." The main objection I have to deleting articles upon request of the subject is that our graciousness would turn into a willingness to whitewash Wikipedia (and I believe we are doing too much whitewashing already). But deleting an all-positive bio about a private individual is not going to hurt our credibility, so let's do it. Kla'quot 16:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a need to say that while I support deleting this article, I strongly disagree with the rationale given in the nomination. The policy changes at WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards are guidelines for closing, not reasons for nominating or for voting. Wikipedia is developing a culture where all it takes for an article to be deleted is that the subject isn't a world leader, the subject doesn't want an article, and the closing admin hasn't heard of the person. Kla'quot 16:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while I argued to keep at the Brandt AfD, it does not appear to me that the subject here is of lasting enough notability to justify an encyclopedia entry. While I am not for the "delete-upon-request" mentality coming around recently, the fact that he doesn't want it either is rather icing on that particular cake. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It makes me really really sad when people find having a Wikipedia entry an extra nuisance. Having a Wikipedia entry should be an honor, not a burden... Very very sad. Also, it is one thing to "whitewash" (remove justified and well-sourced criticism), and a completely different matter when we unable to keep articles free from libel and vandalism. --Merzul 20:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But we have been able to keep this particular article quite free of libel and vandalism. See my list of vandal edits above -- less than 20 minutes of unreverted vandalism in the apst 7 months, and none of thsoe approch libel -- the most "defamnatory" was a staement that his beard was too long, for heaven's sake. See also GRBerry's comments below. I also will put this article on my watch list if kept, and help make sure that any vandalism is rverted. DES ^(talk) 14:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N and requesting deletion is not an encyclopedic reason to delete; if Oliver North or Bill Clinton or Charles Manson wanted their articles deleted or have the unfortunate material removed from them would any self-respecting encyclopedia comply? Carlossuarez46 20:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Finkelstein is notable for his investigations into Google and search engine censorship,[9][10] especially his controversial views on use of bayesian filtering at Google.[11] He's regularly used as a pundit and quoted by many newspapers and blogs. Finkelstein got an exemption made to the DMCA,[12] which is no minor achievement. He is generally listened to - when he wrote about his previous deletion attempt[13] it got picked up elsewhere.[14] Finally, his work has been recognized with an EFF Pioneer Award.[15] Together, this shows he is notable enough for inclusion.

I don't know what the "precedent of courtesy deletions" are, perhaps someone can point them out. The BLP deletion link given is very limited. Suggesting oversight is needed is crazy - deletion means it's off the internet. Protection of the page is probably not needed (you probably left this in from your copy-and-paste from the Brandt article). The references given are certainly not "from an era before either this site or the Internet existed". --h2g2bob (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"regularly used as a pundit ... He is generally listened to" - Who is this "Seth Finkelstein" of which you speak? Must be someone else who shares my name. I've never met him, but I'd like to. Thanks for the kind words, but the previous deletion attempt got coverage not because of who-I-am, but because it was a human interest story of someone who viewed a Wikipedia entry of him as detrimental to his life, in contrast to how so many people want to be in Wikipedia for vanity reasons. As I say, I consider this a case of "You've achieved a few things over the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life" - Seth Finkelstein 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That line of argument isn't really designed to win over Wikipedians, who are unlikely to want to believe that articles in their encyclopedia are "troll magnets" (true or not). *Dan T.* 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but I'm not good at politics. What other reasonable answer is there to accusations of being a censor or a control-freak? -- Seth Finkelstein 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A mention in the New York Times doesn't make someone notable. A long article in the New York Times which covers his life including where he grew up and what he read as a child, and specifically credits him for making information widely public, an EFF award, and a DMCA exemption does. "As a founder of the Censorware Project, an anti-filtering advocacy group, Mr. Finkelstein has influenced public debate and legal decisions"... -AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If WP:OPTOUT existed, I'm not sure that this article would be at AfD. Mr. Finkelstein seems to meet the criteria for an article, and this doesn't really seem to be the main focus of his arguments for deleiton. As such, my preference that AfD arguments be based on established policy and guidelines leads me to this position. Maxa megalon 2000 18:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable enough for an article and the existing article seems consistent with WP:BLP. I don't see any realistic way to incorporate the subject's desires to not have such an article into the process. Bucketsofg 18:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with User:Bucketsofg above. If we have a general "opt-out" policy, and this person seems to want, anyone whose biographical article includes accurate but unwanted content will opt out, introducing a huge systemic bias, and making this into a large vanity-bio site. The subject's role in getting changes made to the DCMA alone warrant an article. FredCups 21:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated by others. Three additional comments:

Durova writes, "To paraphrase one appeal, the individual expected to wrap his fish in those papers the next day and certainly didn’t anticipate how those bits of information could be collected and assembled a few keystrokes away for anyone on the planet." This argument seems to apply only to pre-Internet incidents, and even in that sphere certainly doesn't apply to a profile in the New York Times, which was available on microfilm at every major research library in the United States.
Mr. Finkelstein has urged deletion because trolling edits to the article will be "reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia." He has elaborated: "Wikipedia is different from putting a page up on the web, because Wikipedia strips out attribution, and worse, adds an unwarranted air of authority. Or are you saying that Wikipedia articles are (not *should be*, but *are*) in general trusted no more than a crazy ranter's website?" I don't think the laundering effect is all that great. I looked at a randomly selected vandalistic edit to the article and it told me, inter alia, that "Seth Finlestein [sic] ... jumps 4 inches high". The hypothetical reader who came to the article during the two minutes before that was reverted would indeed have trusted it no more than a crazy ranter's website (assuming the reader to have an ounce of intelligence).
If vandalism of this article is indeed a problem, then semi-protection might be appropriate. It wouldn't prevent all vandalism, trolling, mudslinging, etc., but it would help.

JamesMLane t c 07:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Who? --Coroebus 11:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IDONTKNOWIT is no reason for deletion --h2g2bob (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the existence of a handful of references to someone, who has achieved nothing of interest or note, is no basis for an article! (I am of course talking in terms of what belongs in an encyclopedia, rather than having a go at Seth) --Coroebus 15:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is notable and significant in his field. (Argument made more fully by me in the first AFD and by others above.) As I promised in the last AFD, I've watchlisted the article since then. I've only had three reverts on the article in the last year (two of those over external links); vandalism is not a frequent occurance. The only repeated vandalism I am aware of occurred within 48 hours of the first AFD closing, so we'll probably have to watch especially closely after this one closes. GRBerry 14:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, there are many stories where the gist of the plot is that a threat which hangs over one's head is still destructive even if that threat is never carried out. A Wikipedia biography is a constant threat. Regrettably, I would like to be unburdened of it. Yes, there are other negatives besides this. But, in my view, Wikipedia has already had its "one bite" at me, and the frequent news stories of people's Wikipedia articles being used to libel them do not re-assure me. -- Seth Finkelstein 01:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't give a rat's ass about WP:BLP -- there's no "delete because the subject is a control freak" clause within it that I'm aware of -- but the subject isn't all that notable to begin with. --Calton | Talk 14:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with indefinite semiprotection. The possiblity of vandals causing reputational damage is a great argument for indefinite protection of the article, but not for deleting the article. Agree with FredCups a few edits up in that allowing public figures to opt out would set a bad precedent. Squidfryerchef 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is only marginally notable. In accordance with the new BLP policy we should delete. [16] I have noticed all the keep votes have REFUSED to properly address the new policy standard. So that makes their votes irrelevant. This also confirms the article can easily be deleted within policy guidelines. I call on the closing administrator to carefully evaulate the AFD comments and the new BLP policy. I must say, both Daniel Brandt and Seth Finkelstein are not notable to any degree to be included in any encyclopedia (paper or online). Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 00:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On a contentious subject, I consider it unhelpful for you to urge that several other editors' comments be ignored as "irrelevant". As to your specific point, (1) the new policy applies only in cases of borderline notability, and some of us don't consider a Times-profiled award-winner to be borderline; and (2) even when it does apply, the weight to be given the subject's preference is not specified -- I'm guessing that any attempt to make the subject's preference dispositive, or even to accord it "substantial" weight or some such, would have met with significant opposition. JamesMLane t c 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Seth Who? is only borderline notable. Thanks for your input. I rest my case. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking News The Daniel Brandt is gone and has been redirected. The Daniel article was a lot bigger and has a lot more press coverage, including a multitude of references. Both articles do not pass any notability test. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great!

Let's create a Censorware Project article and merge the non-trivial content from this article into that one. Problem solved. Jehochman ^Talk 04:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a solution. Delete this article in line with Brandt's article and move on to bigger and better things. The subject Censoreware Project is even less notable. It would not survive an AFD. End of discussion. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that Daniel Brandt is canvassing votes to delete this article. The closing admin will need to take into account possible interventions by SPAs, sock- and meatpuppets. There is of course also that possibility for "keep" votes, though I know of no evidence of any such canvassing on that side of the argument. (comment text copied from ChrisO) Ford MF 08:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not disputed that subject more than meets the usual "keep" standards for biographies, nor that there has been little vandalism or BLP issues with the article. The only reason this is being proposed for deletion is that subject does not like having a Wikipedia bio, and worrying about it causes him to lose sleep and lessen his quality of life. While I'm not unsympathetic to this, I'm sure a number of people with Wikipedia bios have lost some sleep over their bios for far more dramatic impact to their lives (Finkelstein's life seems to have been impacted only to the point that he is just bothered by the thought of a wikibio), so it's not clear to me why we need entertain this man's wishes. --C S (Talk) 09:50, 14 June 2007 (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.