Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica Hardwick

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. Core desat 04:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Hardwick[edit]

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Erica Hoesch.
Hardwick was a minor figure in the American neo-Nazi movement. She subsequently had a change of heart and is now a minor figure in the anti-neo-Nazi movement. Her previous neo-Nazi friends have plenty of nasty things to say about. However I don't believe that there's never been an article or profile about her, and I'm not aware of any other claims to notabilty. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO, a non-notable political activist. STORMTRACKER 94 13:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with the nom, not to mention it's unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I see what you did here. You took an old decently sized article then removed all information and references and now trying to nominate it for deletion. Fortunately I was around there when there was the first VfD and remember that this article used to be decently sized and decently sourced. Shame on you, Will Beback for trying to fool us all. Grue 19:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Over a year ago I removed unsourced material,[1] as required by WP:BLP. The diff you provide is deceptive, as it hides the intermediate editing by an anon. Here is the correct diff for my second edit from that period:[2] As you can see I'm restoring material, not deleting it. I haven't made a significant edit to the article since then. I believe you are mistaken about the circumstances, and you haven't made any assertion about the notability of the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - When you restored the article, you restored a stub, and left out several other paragraphs. Immediately following (and I am not implying it is your responsibility to manage this), the same IP removed references. That we're now discussing the article as not being notable per WP:BIO when one of the primary qualifiers was deleted by a person who claimed to be the article subject and that this fact has not been weighed into consideration concerns me. Achromatic (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for acknowledging that you were wrong to accuse me of making the deletions. If there is some sourced material that asserts the subject's notability then please add it to the article. Right now there's nothing that does so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Grue, it is extremely difficult to Assume Good Faith when an editor summarily deletes large swathes of an article, and then says that the article is then not worthy of inclusion. Why, Will, if you felt the article was not-notable on its own merits, did you feel the need to delete 80%+ of it before proposing it as an AfD? Achromatic (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide an honest diff showing me removing "80%" of the article. I believe you are mistaken. Regardless of editing, what is the notability of this subject? How does she meet WP:BIO? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does this qualify? [3]? There were four edits in that time frame - 1) you reverting an unsourced addition (as indeed you should), 2) Erica (or someone purporting to be her) blanking the article and saying it's mostly incorrect, 3) you reverting and 'stubbifying' the article (I'm not sure on what grounds - though it could use citations), and 4) Erica (if we're going on the probability of the same IP in 24 hours that initially claimed to be her), deleting all references. As for notability, I think that it's interesting that a neo-nazi political activist went on to actively work against that same movement. I just don't know that the removal by an anon IP that deleted all secondary sources counts as "not notable" per WP:BIO's "Basic Criteria" - seems to me that that basic criteria could be met by simply reverting the removal of all references from the article, rather than a "WP:BIO Not Notable AfD". Achromatic (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, that doesn't qualify - that diff contains "3 intermediate edits". Those include a major deletions an anon claiming to be the purported subject, [4], a partial revert by me,[5], another deletion by the anon,[6], and a restoration by me of the categories.[7] None of those show me deleting material from the article. Thanks for admitting that you were incorrect to accuse me of deleting "80%" of the article. So specifically, how is this person notable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, technically, I didn't admit any such thing. Especially considering, if we want to really be pedantic on this, prior to edit 1 above, the body of the article was 780 words. That same article, following your "stubbifying" after "Erica" blanked it was 191 words. It wasn't 80%, it was 75%. My apologies. How is this person notable? By the tenets of WP:BIO "she has been the subjecof published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,3 and independent of the subject." See previous remark on references. As for "None of these show me deleting material from the article"? That's funny. In the revision immediately preceding the blanking by "Erica", the article contains EIGHT paragraphs. Your "revert" leaves the article containing ONE paragraph. If that material wasn't deleted in the course of your reversion, I'm at a loss as to where else it ended up. Achromatic (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How can you accuse me of deleting "75%" of the article when I restored material that was deleted by another editor? That's just bizarre. As for the notability, when has she been the subject of published secondary source material? Being mentioned in an article isn't the same as being the subject of an article. She's been mentioned several times, but none of the mentions are significant nor do they assert notability otherwise. As I wrote at the top, she's a minor figure, not a notable individual. If you have any evidence of her notability please provide it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure how much simpler I can explain it: Content is there. Content is blanked. You choose to restore only a fraction of it. That was your decision, and yours alone, and amounted to the removal of a large portion of the work. The user blanked the page, yes, they deleted it and you "reverted" and "stubbified", by which when you reverted it, you removed in the order of six hundred words. How is that not "deleting material"? Achromatic (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Would you prefer it if I'd restored none of the material deleted by the anon/subject? You've read the article and haven't restored it either, so you're equally culpable for the "deletion". Why haven't you restored it, if it's so worthwhile? However this is all about something that happened a year ago. Do you have any evidence of the subject's notability? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        From my response to your response to Grue: "(and I am not implying it is your responsibility to manage this)". You are correct, I have not restored this content either, because on the face of it, I am not necessarily convinced of notability, though as previously mentioned coverage by (among others) The Roanoke Times would appear to meet WP:BIO's 'basic criteria'. That, coupled with the general principle of "When in doubt, keep" re deletion lead to my vote for "Keep". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achromatic (talk • contribs) 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The Roanoke article establishes the notability of Bill White, who is the subject of the article. It doesn't establish the notability of the person who complained about him. When it comes to BLP, the policy is "if in doubt, leave it out." Right now the article doesn't have a single source, and only a couple of facts can be compiled from reliable sources that are in the revision history. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This version of the article [8] shows that at one time it had enough references to make it a valid entry. Looks like the revisions need to be rolled back aways. Cla68 (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually look at those sources? Only three of them are reliable secondary sources, none of them is about the subject, and they don't mention 95% of the assertions in the article. How, exactly does this person meet WP:BIO? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Will Beback is right about the references some of which don't mention her and one isn't even related to the subject whatsoever [9]. Google hasn't much non trivial sources with the top two straight from Wikipedia [10]. A non notable political activist.--Sandahl 19:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While on its surface this version looks salvageable, as Will points out, when you actually try to use those sources to verify notability, one comes up dry. She is not notable by a long shoot. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no reliable, secondary sources in any of the versions I've looked at, so it seems it has always been a BLP violation. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've found one, a local article about someone else, in which she's mentioned. [11] There would need to be secondary sources that she's the focus of, or at least more the focus of than this. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see nothing notable about the subject, even withing the anti-racist movement. Other than being mentioned in some local papers, there seems to be nothing else special about the subject, or even particularly interesting, for that matter (and this is coming from someone in the anti-racist movement). --Mista-X (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable - reference in a small-town newspaper in an article about someone else isn't enough. SuperVideoGameKid (talk) 18:50, 19 December 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.