Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila Rajiva

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 04:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lila Rajiva[edit]

Delete, nn writer and part of User:Striver's WP:POINT. The user himself has several majority delete afd's and has attacked other contributing wikipedians. An Admin is already looking to block the user from editting wikipedia. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media)-Jersey Devil 01:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this an AfD nomination? 'cos your nom explores the article author significantly more than it explores the article. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable writer, made articles for CounterPunch and wrote a book. They are stalking me and AFD every article i creat that is mildly relevant to the 9/11 Truth movement, and now, they have gone so far that they are AFD'ing article that are not even relevant to the 9/11 Truth movement, but solely since i created them. Further, the block threats are bogus, they have nothing that big on me, they just hate my edits. Also, how in the world does this article has anyting to do with WP:POINT? Another bad faith arguement.--Striver 02:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You keep mentioning WP:POINT, and I'm not seeing it. What is the point Striver is trying to make by disrupting Wikipedia? It seems to me he is trying to get some information out there, but that's not disruption. He may be violating WP:SOAP, or wrong, deluded, POV, who knows, but not in violation of WP:POINT. · rodii · 02:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best analogy I can give is that Striver is wikibombing to boost the notability of individuals doubting the official 9-11 timeline. He started by slapping a POV tag on September 11, 2001 attacks, demanding that the official timeline be called "9/11 Bin Laden Conspiracy Theory", i.e. putting it on equal footing with the rest of the ideas at the 9-11 Conspiracy Theories page. To do this he cites a policy that requiring a "significant minority" to believe in any alternate theories. To boost the significance of these people, he has resported to creating articles for them. Then created articles which he could cite (e.g. 9-11: The Road to Tyranny). Then created items like Problem Reaction Solution to boost notability of the former. Notability in this case is highly circular. On the individual's pages he's claiming that they're notable because they are the most famous among those that hold these alternative views. Then on Talk: September 11th Attacks he claims that these views are notable because these people hold it. --Mmx1 04:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make good points here. Striver is kind of trying to make a Wikipedia:Walled garden, and clearly pushing a POV. All I'm saying is that it's not a WP:POINT violation; I'm not defending it or voting to keep it. · rodii · 13:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, journalists are presumptively notable, and no evidence shown otherwise. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How are journalists presumptively notable? Burden of proof is on notability, not the other way around. How exactly does one show non-notability? You can refute reasons for notability, but there aren't obvious criteria for non-notability.--Mmx1 21:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' and merge in The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media. Author seems to satisfy WP:BIO#People still alive "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". It does seem Striver's gone overboard adding articles mostly relating to one broad topic, but I wonder if WP:POINT isn't more relevant to the proposed deletions than it was to the creations? Schizombie 03:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep if author can cite print media regarding the author; Merge to The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media & Delete if not --Mmx1 04:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABU GHRAIB: Author Lila Rajiva will talk about her book The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media, which examines how the torture of Iraqi prisoners was whitewashed by the media. Presented by the Marxist School of Sacramento. 7pm Th 12/15, free. Sierra 2 Center, 2791 24th St., (916) 799-1354. [1] --Striver 04:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reaching for straws, aren't you? It's a calendar! Does "Parents without Partners" deserve a page too? --Mmx1 04:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started here, but i put the rest i found on the AFD for the book. --Striver 05:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reluctantly. Gets 71,000 Google hits [2] and 8 Google News results [3] so she is notable in the far left community. Capitalistroadster 04:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point of view on Google hits - Might not be the best way to judge. There might be other Lila Rajiva's that the search engine might be throwing up. Sbohra 13:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Strivercruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unlike most of the 9-11 related cruft produced by the original author, this individual does appear to be notable. Sandstein 10:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- no case made for deletion other than dislike of the originator or subject. -- Simon Cursitor 12:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be notable per capitalistroadster. While I sympathise with Blnguyen's comment, this article does seem to be about someone who is sufficiently notable for a wikipedia article to exist. MLA 14:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MLA. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Simon Cursitor. Vizjim 15:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only media citing the author or the book are bookseller reviews (not media) and blogs. --Mmx1 15:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be somewhat notable, and while I agree the author's (of the article) postings have not generally been good, they shouldn't be blanket deleted.Not my leg 21:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge in The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media as per Schizombie comments above. --Mmeinhart 01:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Simon Cursitor Sbohra 13:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above - she is clearly notable enough as a journalist/commentator. Batmanand | Talk 14:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Ad hominem is not a criterion for article deletion. -- Krash (Talk) 15:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm skeptical as to the readership of Dissident voice and the use of Google News. Its wiki page gives no indication as to its readership and Google News indexes many smaller publications as well. It indexes my college newspaper (its readership estimated conservatively at 1500) too. Should [Chris Kulawik] (an undergrad columnist) get an article too? He gets 5 google news hits and 30,000 ghits, too. --Mmx1 15:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, regardless of who created the article. Bhumiya/Talk 06:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable journalist regardless of article author and subjects the journalist covers. Nigelthefish 15:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notablity not established --rogerd 00:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & merge as per Schizombie. JeffBurdges 16:33, 2 March 2006 (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.