Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert I. Sherman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 May 31. 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 Speedy, snowball close and delete owing to no likelihood there will be a consensus to keep. Moreover, there seems to be no wide or meaningful coverage of this person's career in reliable sources, only thin coverage of a single, rather small controversy which (perhaps) could be more helpfully dealt with in another, more fitting article which has to do with Mr Bush's religious outlook.. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robert I. Sherman[edit]
- Robert I. Sherman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
BLP nightmare. Removed a section per BLP (check history for it), but then I saw the whole thing is a mess. There's nothing biographical about it. It's just a negative BLP from top to bottom. I don't know if this guy is really notable or not, as there's not an assertion of notability made in the article. He made some controversial remarks, okay, but he's a journalist... what work has he done?
Noting that the subject has expressed strong objections to the article through OTRS (Ticket:2009051810049523), if he is notable and no one is willing to immediately rewrite the article, it should be deleted until it is created within our high standards for BLPs. لennavecia 21:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, actually, reading through it again, I'm thinking it may actually qualify for G10, but as I've already opened the AFD, I'll not do that. If another admin agrees it's qualifies for G10, please do it. لennavecia 21:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete My first reaction when reading this article was an unconscious mouse movement and near placement of a CSD G10 (Personal attack). This page, while sourced, is nothing more then an attack page. This is absolutely no WP:NPOV compliant article, and it certainly violates neutrality guidelines we have for BLP pages. As this page would indeed require a full rewrite i would suggest removing the page so it will start with a clean slate and a non attack history. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. With the attack material dropped, the article is now a stub about a non-notable journalist who put his foot in his mouth.Tyrenon (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I literally gutted the article of material not relating to this guy, and whats left is some debacle where he called a Chicago state representative a negro, then removed it from his web site. I tried to look for sources but alas, I didn't find anything noteworthy. Syn 21:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above; there's nothing much there. Quantumobserver (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete attack page --- nn subject. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I am so angry about this. The material on the alleged Bush quote on atheists is NOT a BLP concern. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (Wikipedia:Verifiability) What is verfiable is that Sherman has alleged that Bush said this. The Washington Monthly certainly is a reliable source, or does anyone want to dispute this? This material is notable if you look at the number of sources that there are on this. I am particularly angry because I spent a lot of time researching the issue, writing a balanced account of it and defending in the discussions about it. I will make a note of this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard an seek some more input. Zara1709 (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I looked only at the version of the article with the attacks removed. It should still be deleted; it is a classic example of WP:BIO1E and WP:COATRACK. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote an elaborate argument why it is inappropriate to of "attacks" here at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Robert I.Sherman - Balanced or CSD G10? The WP:BIO1E argument does not apply. Sherman is not a person "notable only for one event." If you look at the article, you will see that he stumbled into a political discussion at least TWO times. (And the account of the second one is balanced, too, b.t.w.) I know that there is an OTRS ticket for this article, but you can't simply delete this material because it is controversial. If someone makes controversial remarks, and consequently gets into the focus of the public, he sooner or later becomes notable for this. (And in this case, I think that impact was intended.) And you can't blame Wikipedia then, if some editors there write abn account about these remarks that gives all sides of the issue. Zara1709 (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While I appreciate the anger you feel in your work being up for deletion, the article is bordering on an attack page and quite possibly could have been speedy deleted as such. Rather than being presented as a biography, it's a negative piece from top to bottom and the subject of the article has expressed strong objections to the content of the article. Verifiability, not truth. You are very correct, and your own writing states that the Bush section has not and cannot be verified. Considering WP:UNDUE, the article is far from NPOV, giving massive amounts of undue weight to individual incidents while giving absolutely no information whatsoever on his overall career, whatever that may be. لennavecia 06:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NO, this article is NOT "bordering on an attack page". This statement is, what makes me so angry. I honestly get the impression that you've never read the sections you have deleted. This person participated in two controversies, about which there are different views. In these controversies, each side gets it's due weight. We can probably discuss this afd on the basis of notability, but you are not describing the article to be "bordering on an attack page". Zara1709 (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the article. Twice, actually. The article is titled as a biography, but it is not presented as one. Rather it mentions nothing more than two controversial incidents, while stating in the lead sentence that he is a journalist, yet gives no details whatsoever about his career. There is also zero detail about his life, his education, or anything else. How this can be considered a "balanced biography" is not clear to me. It reports on two incidents, which gives wildly undue weight to each when considering a biography should cover one's life and career and there is no mention of any of it. لennavecia 06:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NO, this article is NOT "bordering on an attack page". This statement is, what makes me so angry. I honestly get the impression that you've never read the sections you have deleted. This person participated in two controversies, about which there are different views. In these controversies, each side gets it's due weight. We can probably discuss this afd on the basis of notability, but you are not describing the article to be "bordering on an attack page". Zara1709 (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While I appreciate the anger you feel in your work being up for deletion, the article is bordering on an attack page and quite possibly could have been speedy deleted as such. Rather than being presented as a biography, it's a negative piece from top to bottom and the subject of the article has expressed strong objections to the content of the article. Verifiability, not truth. You are very correct, and your own writing states that the Bush section has not and cannot be verified. Considering WP:UNDUE, the article is far from NPOV, giving massive amounts of undue weight to individual incidents while giving absolutely no information whatsoever on his overall career, whatever that may be. لennavecia 06:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote an elaborate argument why it is inappropriate to of "attacks" here at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Robert I.Sherman - Balanced or CSD G10? The WP:BIO1E argument does not apply. Sherman is not a person "notable only for one event." If you look at the article, you will see that he stumbled into a political discussion at least TWO times. (And the account of the second one is balanced, too, b.t.w.) I know that there is an OTRS ticket for this article, but you can't simply delete this material because it is controversial. If someone makes controversial remarks, and consequently gets into the focus of the public, he sooner or later becomes notable for this. (And in this case, I think that impact was intended.) And you can't blame Wikipedia then, if some editors there write abn account about these remarks that gives all sides of the issue. Zara1709 (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per David Eppstein. Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I get roughly 1000 hits for "Robert I. Sherman" from google [1] and 1100 from yahoosearch [2] Then there are several newspaper articles and at least one mentioning on TV. [3] about the controversies (there are not two, but actually 3, at least).Some details about him can be filled out from his homepage. He claims to have been a radio moderator in a 'Rob Sherman Show' on AM 1530 WJJG Chicago. ... And I looked for only 5 minutes. If you don't count the controversies, it could still turn out that he is not notable, but it certainly isn't a clear case. Zara1709 (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per Arbitration case of 2007 at: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. While it may be a broad interpretation of WP:NPA to apply that core policy to a WP:BLP, I believe it fundamentally understandable that it applies to content as well as editors. I don't question that the possibility of a Robert I. Sherman article exists; however, this is not it. — Ched : ? 07:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please have the courtesy to specify where you see a "personal attacks". This person was part of several public controversies, and thus faced with several polemical attacks, however, you cannot blame Wikipedia for referring that those attacks existed. I am particularly opposed to the notion that the material that I contributed about the alleged Bush quotes would constitute a personal attack. Zara1709 (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the idea that this is a WP:POV WP:FORK, and ignoring the concept that this is not a BLP article, when you cherry pick a statement like "... said: “I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic.”" from the National Secular piece, while ignoring the possibly baiting questions, and the proceeding comments and questions - then I consider it an attack. I completely fail to see the NPOV here. There are just so many ways that this does not fit into an encyclopedic endeavor. Be it the inability to verify, the WP:COATRACK issues that David brought up, or the WP:UNDUE issues that mentioned by Jennavica. It may well work fine for an online op-ed piece, but it just doesn't fit any understanding that I have of our policies and guidelines. I appreciate the work that you've put into this, but it's not an encyclopedic style of work. I believe that the ArbCom decision is directly related to this article. I realize that this is only my own opinion, but I have to stick by that. — Ched : ? 08:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Admittedly, the article still lacks basic information about Sherman outside of the political controversies, so concerns about Wikipedia:Coatrack are justified, albeit refutable. It is not as if the missing material couldn't be added. Concerning you other points, I would suggest that you write a longer elaboration at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Robert I. Sherman, because I don't see your point when you write about the "inability to verify". Anyone who can use google should be able to verify that Sherman has alleged that Bush made the said quote about atheists. But actually, any political active atheist in the Unites States is likely to be already aware of that. Don't you think that Wikipedia, as the web's foremost source of reference, should provide an account of the question based on the best sources pertaining to it?Zara1709 (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I honestly do need to get some sleep here, but I will follow-up tomorrow. Several items: 1.) I'm not seeking any administrative action here, so I really don't have good reason to post to AN or AN/I in this matter. 2.) Regarding Bush and atheists: I don't really involve myself in religious or political debates at WP. 3.) I'll gladly discuss the points of whether or not the article should be kept, and I believe that this is the place for that. I'll also say, that I more often than not prefer to keep material that can fit with our endeavors, and I'll often watchlist an AfD on the rare occasion that I do participate in such discussions. Should the article evolve into what I consider an encyclopedic piece, I will gladly change my vote. Now allow me to ask you a question if I may, If this conversation had taken place in public, do you not think that there would be documentation of it in items such as: The New York Post, The New York Times, USA Today, WSJ, and equivalent publications? I also read through the Chicago Trib. which you reference, but it does not cover the item I mention either. I'd also mention, that the sentence structure of the Bush quote, does effectivly obscure the fact that this was a claim Mr. Sherman made, rather than a statement of fact. That further enforces my perception of the attack idea. It appears to me that we have one man, making a claim that Bush Sr. made this statement over 20 years ago, getting it posted to National Secular Society, and the second reference you use for this is the Madalyn O'Hair piece on a positiveatheism.org blog which states at the bottom that they can't even verify the physical address of the site. Hopefully you can start to see the difficulties I'm having in accepting this as material for this type of endeavor which WP presents. Please consider these issues, and I will gladly entertain any comments you'd care to make tomorrow. — Ched : ? 09:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Admittedly, the article still lacks basic information about Sherman outside of the political controversies, so concerns about Wikipedia:Coatrack are justified, albeit refutable. It is not as if the missing material couldn't be added. Concerning you other points, I would suggest that you write a longer elaboration at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Robert I. Sherman, because I don't see your point when you write about the "inability to verify". Anyone who can use google should be able to verify that Sherman has alleged that Bush made the said quote about atheists. But actually, any political active atheist in the Unites States is likely to be already aware of that. Don't you think that Wikipedia, as the web's foremost source of reference, should provide an account of the question based on the best sources pertaining to it?Zara1709 (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the idea that this is a WP:POV WP:FORK, and ignoring the concept that this is not a BLP article, when you cherry pick a statement like "... said: “I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic.”" from the National Secular piece, while ignoring the possibly baiting questions, and the proceeding comments and questions - then I consider it an attack. I completely fail to see the NPOV here. There are just so many ways that this does not fit into an encyclopedic endeavor. Be it the inability to verify, the WP:COATRACK issues that David brought up, or the WP:UNDUE issues that mentioned by Jennavica. It may well work fine for an online op-ed piece, but it just doesn't fit any understanding that I have of our policies and guidelines. I appreciate the work that you've put into this, but it's not an encyclopedic style of work. I believe that the ArbCom decision is directly related to this article. I realize that this is only my own opinion, but I have to stick by that. — Ched : ? 08:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please have the courtesy to specify where you see a "personal attacks". This person was part of several public controversies, and thus faced with several polemical attacks, however, you cannot blame Wikipedia for referring that those attacks existed. I am particularly opposed to the notion that the material that I contributed about the alleged Bush quotes would constitute a personal attack. Zara1709 (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per David Eppstein, etc. Verbal chat 08:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, hello again, Verbal. ... You probably remember me; When I made a futile attempt to actually make a meaningful article out of Discrimination against atheists, you rude response almost drove me off from Wikipedia. If you like to know it - I am almost there again (on the verge of quitting). I already wrote that WP:BIO1E does not apply (in any case not verbatim), since there is more than only one controversy surrounding Sherman. I am still counting how many there - currently I am at 4. Do you have a reply to my argument or would you rather like to ignore it? Zara1709 (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought we sorted that out and I dispute it having anything to do with me. This person does not meet the notability guidelines. The events are: 1, his possible/probable misreporting; 2, an incident in which he is incidental, it should be included in Monique Davis and does not add notability to this person; 3, use of "negro", should also be in the Monique Davis article, if anywhere - lots of people abuse this term and it doesn't necessarily establish notability. This also appears to be a coatrack, and not a biography. Verbal chat 08:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure if you endorse this deletion based on the 'spirit' behind WP:BIO1E, but based on the wording of that part of the guideline, you can't endorse it. There are (at least) 4 events in connection to him, in which he is mentioned. It shouldn't be a surprise when an atheist political activist has been in the news several times due to his activism for atheists... It is therefore possible to conclude that he is a notable political activist for atheists. It might appear that this is a case for WP:NOT#NEWS, but then, on the other hand, the guideline states "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event,..." etc. There certainly is news coverage on Robert I. Sherman outside the context of a single event. That most news reports are somehow in relation to his political activism for atheism can not be used as an argument for deletion based on the wording of the guideline. Zara1709 (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it's a good job I didn't use his political activism as a reason for deletion. Verbal chat 09:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) What are the four controversies? The Bush issue is more appropriate in the Bush bio. The Davis issue is almost entirely about her and belongs in the Davis bio. What are the other controversies, because as the article currently is, it's still completely void of biographical information. لennavecia 12:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure if you endorse this deletion based on the 'spirit' behind WP:BIO1E, but based on the wording of that part of the guideline, you can't endorse it. There are (at least) 4 events in connection to him, in which he is mentioned. It shouldn't be a surprise when an atheist political activist has been in the news several times due to his activism for atheists... It is therefore possible to conclude that he is a notable political activist for atheists. It might appear that this is a case for WP:NOT#NEWS, but then, on the other hand, the guideline states "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event,..." etc. There certainly is news coverage on Robert I. Sherman outside the context of a single event. That most news reports are somehow in relation to his political activism for atheism can not be used as an argument for deletion based on the wording of the guideline. Zara1709 (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought we sorted that out and I dispute it having anything to do with me. This person does not meet the notability guidelines. The events are: 1, his possible/probable misreporting; 2, an incident in which he is incidental, it should be included in Monique Davis and does not add notability to this person; 3, use of "negro", should also be in the Monique Davis article, if anywhere - lots of people abuse this term and it doesn't necessarily establish notability. This also appears to be a coatrack, and not a biography. Verbal chat 08:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, hello again, Verbal. ... You probably remember me; When I made a futile attempt to actually make a meaningful article out of Discrimination against atheists, you rude response almost drove me off from Wikipedia. If you like to know it - I am almost there again (on the verge of quitting). I already wrote that WP:BIO1E does not apply (in any case not verbatim), since there is more than only one controversy surrounding Sherman. I am still counting how many there - currently I am at 4. Do you have a reply to my argument or would you rather like to ignore it? Zara1709 (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as coatrack article not establishing the notability of its subject. Most of the content is about controversies surrounding alleged statements by other, notable persons and can, if at all, be reported in their articles. Sandstein 12:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject of minor notability requested deletion of article about them. Hipocrite (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete borderline notable, and there are no strong sources that treat the subject of this BLP in any depth.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:01, 28 May 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.