Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Levenson

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2017 September 1.
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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Levenson[edit]

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

Possibly notable, but this is advocacy, possibly justifying speedy G11 Does not meet BLP sourcing requirements. Numerous uncited judgmental statements throughout. Created by declared paid editor, and is a prime example of the danger of paid editing. Personally, I think the subject is due a refund. No editor without COI would have created this one-sided defense in this manner. If the subject is notable, an this should be dicarded as a BLP violation, and a proper article substituted. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who created the article, I have already made an as-yet unfulfilled edit request to replace the current version of this article (which I agree is offensively promotional) with the one I wrote here. I would have performed the replacement myself two days ago, but as a paid editor, I only submitted it as an edit request. I believe that version of this article is phrased with the correct neutrality. I had submitted that version to the client, and he decided I should submit a new version which he wrote himself. I warned him that this would inevitably create problems for him, as the version he wrote was not neutral and would likely be marked for deletion. He insisted, "My version has the facts", and told me he wanted it published. With great reluctance, I did as he asked. No surprise to me, it has indeed been marked for deletion. Honestly, I must thank you, DGG, because I hated this version as much as you do and my client wanted to hear nothing I told him about why it would get deleted. In light of that, I ask that you please consider the earlier version, the version that I actually wrote, and consider whether or not that version might stand in place of the current one (the irony here is that the version the client insisted I publish is the one he should get his money back for when it gets deleted. Absolutely!). KDS4444 (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: KDS4444 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice because Wikipedia is not here to make you or your client rich and famous. Famous _dog (c) 08:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. But that isn't really the point— the point is that I have been completely transparent with regard to my paid editing here, and have followed all of the policy requirements with regard to disclosure for this article. If it is deleted because I was paid, then you have removed every incentive I ever had to disclose my role, and will have punished me for my honesty. If Wikipedia wants its paid editors to be honest about their roles in article creation, it cannot then punish them for following the rules. If you feel the subject is not notable, then please argue deletion on those grounds. KDS4444 (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: KDS4444 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
Transparency and following the TOU does not exempt an editor from following local policy, which explicitly forbids advocacy or promotion. The fact that you were paid to promote the subject (which is what having the article on en.Wiki does) helps provide context to this discussion. Your compliance with the TOU is the minimum acceptable requirement to use the WMF's servers. Once you've done that, we have to assess whether the actions and the article are acceptable under local policy. The answer here is clearly no: it exists to promote the subject, which is against WP:NOT TonyBallioni (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the article that I mentioned above is not, in my opinion, promotional, but I don't get the impression that anyone has taken the time to read it yet. The ad hominem remark about getting rich is pointless and, honestly, a bit insulting. KDS4444 (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Note to closing admin: This editor has been forthright with regard to disclosing his connection to the article's subject and has a COI which has been well-documented on his user page if you feel like checking it out.[reply]

I never made the remark about getting rich. Re: neutral wording and promotionalism, that doesn't change the fact that this is someone who is at best borderline notable (and I don't consider him to be notable per BLP1E) and who paid you to create an article for him on one of the most prominent websites in the world. An article that if written by a neutral contributor that would likely be substantially different. The article, both in the current and suggested forms is a failure of the policy WP:NOT and thus a failure of WP:N, the overarching guideline which the GNG must conform to. Per WP:WHATISTOBEDONE, my opinion is that per current practice on the English Wikipedia, we should deal with the current NOT violation by deleting it. You are of course free to disagree with that and advocate for a different position based on policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "he decided I should submit a new version which he wrote himself" sounds like copyright violation to me. You cannot publish on Wikipedia material you have not written yourself. Refer to WP:COICOPYRIGHT. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The non-exclusive grant of copyright in this situation was orally agreed to as well as implied by the behaviors of the parties involved; US law allows it in either case. Regardless, I am asking for the replacement of the existing article's text with text which I have previously published and licensed here, as mentioned above. I believe this makes a copyright argument moot. KDS4444 (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: KDS4444 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Comment A COI edit request (previously declined) is awaiting review on this article's Talk page. The editor in question says this will answer the concerns. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following link has been provided: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/07/15/four-star-case-failure-manchester/n9VV7BerswvkL5akCgNzvK/amp.html jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither Google, Google Books or Google Scholar demonstrate any kind of notability. For Google News, the sources I see are very local and not centered on the subject, and in any case WP:BLP1E applies here. From which I would like to quote: "biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view". Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that the sources include the Boston Globe, which I don't think anyone considers "very local"? KDS4444 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: KDS4444 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Delete per BLP1E and NOTSPAM. Subject is only notable for one event, which means he isn't notable. NOTSPAM excludes articles that are created for the purpose of promoting subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Which is why I have asked for the text of the current article to be replaced with a previous version that is not promotional but which no one seems willing to look at. KDS4444 (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Note to closing admin: In case you haven't guessed it by now, I probably have a COI with regard to this subject, though it would be nice if other editors could put that fact aside and look at the earlier version of the article before piling on more delete !votes.[reply]

Delete Is this an encyclopedia or some guy with a placard outside the parliament ? Threeseasonsofwinter (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with this particular deletion argument regarding placards and parliament. Can you point to a policy or guideline that it represents? Thanks. KDS4444 (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: KDS4444 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

When you've finished checking out 'Arguments to avoid at AfD' you'll realise that it is a perfectly accurate and legitimate vote. It's another way of saying this is a blatant promotion of a person, and we don't need to be reminded ten times on this page what what the related policies are. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation— that was all I was asking for because it made no sense to me. "Accurate and legitimate"? Who is it that doesn't need reminding? You are implying I should have known what that meant because it was so obvious?? The expression "placard outside the parliament" only gets 23 Google hits, and even those don't make sense here. I was hoping for an explanation "based on policy", not based on a reference to a placard. Too much? KDS4444 (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Also: note to closing admin: I have a conflict of interest with regard to this article, no doubt about it, and have said so on several occasions.[reply]

For a 'professional' editor with autpatrolled and reviewer rights, and an OTRS agent to boot, I would have thought it would easily have made sense to you. I suppose these user rights are compatible with your exploitation of our unpaid volunteer work to enrich yourself and your clients, so I think we can dispense with the disingenuous innocence now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E and NOTSPAM. Any 'Get me on Wikipedia and I'll pay for it' vanity page is blatant promotion however neutrally written and irrespective of the number of sources. Sources do not legitimise other breaches of policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gah. A BLP violation. No inline refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advocacy. And just to save KDS4444 the trouble of quibbling over my !vote - yes, I've read the requested version and while it's better it doesn't overcome the basic issue that you're polishing a turd. Cabayi (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E if I ever saw one, in addition to the promotion/advocacy issues noted above. While the promotionalism might be addresed with further WP:BOGO editing, BLP1E isn't fixable. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Major BLP1E. After reading everyone's stances, I now see that the lone Boston Globe article I posted earlier is not enough to satisfy the issue. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient in-depth coverage of Levenson. Also, see my comments on my talk page. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BLP1E. DrStrauss talk 19:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. For the record, the article creator's preferred version is less promotional than the current version, but the notability is still not there. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 21:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11. Obviously a promotional page, and the subject is not notable. Elliot321 (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2017 (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.