Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoriah Miller

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 keep. It is near unanimous. Non-admin closure ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 12:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Zoriah Miller

Zoriah Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Blatant promo/ self promo, Unverifiable and bogus claims and sources Gskphoto (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment the sources appear to be real. For some reason you have used the name "Zoriah_Miller" rather than "Zoriah Miller". I am correcting this. TFD (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources (refs) claiming awards and publications are linked to Zoriah's own bio and several other personal websites owned by Zoriah Miller himself. No proof of publication, exhibition or work with international organizations have been shown. Gskphoto (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Question The sources for the article are currently something in "BagNewsNotes", an article in the New York Times, something in Epic Edits", a bio page at mondofragilis.fr, an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, a YouTube, and something in Wired. Which of these are "linked to Zoriah's own bio and several other personal websites owned by Zoriah Miller himself"? -- Hoary (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Answer BagNewsNote, A Clynical Psychologist's (Michael Shaw) private endeavour, hardly qualifies as a reliable source. // The bio page in Mondofragilis, is exactly that, a bio page. copy pasted from Zoriah.net // I accept the other links for what they are, Mostly criticism. (except for the Youtube show)Gskphoto (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC) [reformatted Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)]

• Keep. WP:BLP is satisfied by the NYTimes and Wired articles on the page. Whether or not the whole article should stay in its current form is another issue; surely the EL section can be trimmed quite a bit. For the record, the nominator has admitted they "have an axe to grind with someone who is actively giving a bad name to my profession, behaves in a completely unethical manner, and spends more time self promoting himself". — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete 2 articles, mostly negative, are do not create relevance or notoriety. How does my opinion of Zoriah change anything? I am offering you an insight from the inside the Business (where i am). Not just a wiki editor's view (where you are). please remain professional and impartial. [Added in this edit by Gskphoto. Reformatted Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)]
    • Yes, Gskphoto, you are indeed inside the photojournalism business. This is the kind of claim that's easy to make but usually hard to back up; but for you I happen to know it's true. Yes, you're a professional. But you hardly seem impartial. Annyong is not doing it for the money; he's an amateur. So am I. (If you're looking for a professionally edited encyclopedia, see Britannica.) Please become amateur and impartial. -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The article passes verifiablity, the objection raised by Gskphoto. Whether or not it passes notability, that was not the issue presented for deletion. TFD (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability is absolutely one of the main issues. read the history and the recent claims by all parties. // 90% of the article still does NOT pass verifiability. only 3 links do none of the backing up any form of notability or any of the claims in favor of Zoriah's claimed success. Gskphoto (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC) [reformatted and additional "delete" deleted Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)]
    • Gskphoto, you have already voted ("!voted") "delete". I have therefore deleted this second vote of yours and all your subsequent votes. -- Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I have worked with Zoriah Miller on and off over the course of seven years and have not found anything in this article that I would consider to be untrue. There was no debate on this subject until Zoriah offered a workshop in Haiti which was for some reason considered unethical by some of his peers. A simple Google search for "Zoriah" brings up dozens of publication credits, tear sheets etc. And does his photography not speak for itself? What is the issue here? If there is something in the article that people are opposed to then propose a change, but there is no way anyone can say that Zoriah has not had an influence on the industry and photography as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.34.31 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • This is very strange, for just four minutes after saying that you "[had] not found anything in this article that I would consider to be untrue", you made changes to it. One of these was to add Upon review of the case by military officials, Miller was allowed to keep his military credentials and given the right to go on further embeds. This may for all I know be true, but we can't just take your word for it. What evidence can you present for it? ¶ And does his photography not speak for itself? If it is entered in competitions, book proposals, and so on, yes it does speak for itself. In Wikipedia, no it does not. ¶ there is no way anyone can say that Zoriah has not had an influence on the industry and photography as a whole Oh? Zoriah Miller has not had an influence on photography as a whole. There, I've just said it. Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, persuade me -- or rather, persuade the readers of this article -- with reliably sourced evidence for such a large claim. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The article is changed often. I have gone through and made further edits to it. Stating that Zoriah Miller's work in Iraq brought to light issues of unethical journalism is false. The word unethical had never been applied to him until he offered the Haiti workshop. A quick search on the internet shows his work on at least two of the photo agencies websites, the others needed passwords to enter. I contacted Zoriah and had him place a tearsheet from Newsweek on his site and he also has a photograph of himself with his co-workers at the Red Cross. Placed a link to this. He was allowed to keep all of his military credentials when his case was reviewed by Seven Boylan and gen Petraeus. Would you like me to contact him again and have him show you a copy of his military credentials so that we can consider this proof? Obviously he cant place this online. He also has a letter from the VII Photo Agency stating that he was one of the winners of their portfolio contest. There are certain things that are difficult to offer proof to, yet they are still true. I will do my best to get any proof necessary to clear his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.34.31 (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Not true, a Google search of Zoriah brings back 0 tear sheets or real publication credits (outside of his own network of websites)125.25.116.156 (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC) [reformatted Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)]
    • I've stricken and unbolded this "Delete" ivote because it was likely made by someone who has already commented here, but forgot to log on (and hasn't understood that only one ivote/editor is allowed). Gwen Gale (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Where is the proof to any of the claim that he is now allowed back in? both articles, and Zoriah's own blog say he was kicked out, and nowhere is it mentioned that he was allowed to go back. Further more, as a "war photographer", he has NOT gone back to either Afghanistan or Iraq since this episode.[Added in this edit by Gskphoto. Reformatted and additional "delete" deleted Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)]
  • Delete What influence? Zoriah is a kid in the industry without any recognizable award (Pulitzer, WPP, POYi, Visa pour l'image...) any notable publication or exhibition, no present or past contract with known publications or any presence whatsoever in the Newspapers and magazine industry.Gskphoto (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reformatted and additional "delete" deleted Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)]

• Keep I have also worked off-and-on with Zoriah in an editorial capacity for nearly two years. This wikipedia page was up without issue until the controversy surrounding the Haiti workshops erupted. From a notability standpoint, I don't know why being the subject of a New York Times article as well as a documentary television show — both of which revolved around his profession, which this page is about — would be a cause for disqualification. This is not a self-promoted page, as links in question click out to third-party sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Napereditor (talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Untrue. As long ago as March 2007 I pointed out that the article as it then was lacked any independent supporting evidence. And that wasn't just an unfortunate anomaly: half a year later (in this series of edits) I needed both to remove footnotes that appeared to "source" assertions but did not do so, and to add "fact" tags. I was a bit half-hearted with the latter, leaving in such grand assertions as that [his] work has been seen in some of the world’s most prestigious publications, museums and galleries -- an assertion that for all I know was true, but was unadulterated by any evidence whatever. What did happen in February 2010 was the arrival of Gskphoto (nominator of this AfD), with his exclusive interest in Miller. -- Hoary (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete very little doubt remains that this article was written by Zoriah himself, including the latest keep comments, I doubt very much that anyone else could be participating in those self delusions of grandeur . // Any unchecked fact should be removed immediately, according to the rules. Gskphoto (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC) [reformatted and additional "delete" deleted Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)]
  • Gskphoto, you are extraordinarily quick to infer the hand of Miller. In this edit, you write: Hoary: Are you related in a personal way to "Zoriah"? I doubt you would answer the question honestly if you are, but the question still remains. And in this edit, you write to/of me: I'm guessing you must be one of his friends, or Miller himself. Possibly you are too quick to make such inferences. -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of notability and unverified Self PR and glorification of half truths and whole lies are the main issues here. IMHO, it has been established properly. Don't make this personal or another Wikipedia editor's war. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."125.25.116.156 (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC) [additional "delete" deleted Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)]
  • 125.25.116.156, you have already voted ("!voted") "delete" above. I've therefore struck out this second vote. (Incidentally, you and Gskphoto have a curious resemblance to each other.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Strong keep—plenty of reliable sources to demonstrate this person's notability. Any problems with the article can be easily fixed at a later date. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 09:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  Some person using a Bangkok and a French IP number has been keen to tamper with the comment immediately above, on the grounds that the arguments given don't (in his or her view) merit "strong keep". The IP is free to argue this. The IP is not free to tamper with a signed comment. Any further tampering will lead to a block long enough to outlast this AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I'm not convinced Miller meets WP:BLP. Times article is really a one-eventer, and the other coverage is rather incidental. It's definitely a close call, and hard to sort through with all the other issues with the article...I could certainly be convinced otherwise if better sources were found in which Miller were the primary subject Vartanza (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Strong keep I have kept up with this whole thing all the way from lightstalkers, its absolutely flabbergasting to think this thing is still going on. And what have I taken away from all of this ? Zoriah is absolutely right, I mean just look at the absolute obsession has keeping this going. Its completely obvious that this isn't a outcry from the photojournalism community, its the personal vendetta of one or possibly a handful of people. These are people who obviously have wayyy to much time on their hands and think wayyy to highly of themselves in their moral turpitude. This only thing that has no legitimacy in this argument are the people and comments that started this debate in the first place. Zoriah's work speaks for itself, if you want proof of who he has been published with, why don't you get off you lazy ass and find it, why should someone who creates such powerful imagery that makes a clear impact on our world, have to prove himself to anyone. Its clear that any of these people who has brought this discussion to this point clearly have no care for the developing world or the stories they are covering, if they did they would realize that there are not that many people willing to go to the lengths Zoriah does to obtain his imagery. These people are a clear obstruction to any progress or attention Zoriah's work might get, or whom it might help. What have I taken away from all of this ? The photojournalism world is full of wannabe's who aren't out there working and shooting, instead they spend an alarming amount of time trolling anything and everything Zoriah posts, or any article he does with a publication or blog. This is harassment, and I can't see why the law should not be involved and these IP addresses tracked, and logged. If that was done I'm sure you would find that this whole debate was started by and continued by one or maybe 3 people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.182.201 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Before you continue any talk about invoking the law, please read and digest "WP:No legal threats". ¶ There is no mystery about who started "this whole debate"; the answer appearing both at the top of this page and at the start of its history is User:Gskphoto. ¶ Zoriah's work speaks for itself / someone who creates such powerful imagery that makes a clear impact on our world / Some other IP previously made near-identical claims, and I responded, above. ¶ if you want proof of who he has been published with, why don't you get off you lazy ass and find it / Apologies for the laziness of my ass, but the reason why I couldn't find the evidence that you claim exists was that when I looked for it in Google News and indeed Google in general, I got no good hits for it. Yes, I got a lot of claims by third parties of this or that, but the third parties tended to be rather dodgy. This does not mean that their and your claims are untrue; it merely means that I couldn't find the evidence. If you have links to it, post them. ¶ Do try to avoid words such as "ass"; these tend to upset some people hereabouts. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: / 1. per nominator. / 2. I've known Zoriah for years. This article was quite clearly written by himself (the history, and older versions offer quite an insight), as well as the responses on this talk page. And I can tell you, nobody thinks this highly about Zoriah, except for Zoriah himself. I never had a problem with the dude, He's actually a cool guy, but I'm rethinking my whole image of him after reading what he writes about himself here. This is a seriously shameless plug and it's completely delusional. / 3. Hoary; You seem to make some excellent points in favor of a Delete, so how come you start with a Keep? / 4. 184.76.182.201; the discussion on Lightstalkers.org involves dozens of people condemning Zoriah, not 3. I am yet to see 1 that took his side on the Haiti workshop matter. / 5. 82.226.34.31; Interesting that you chose to scan the Newsweek tearsheet from the 2004 Tsunami. That's the only one that wasn't contested by anyone here. So it really doesn't help your cause. And a single publication from 6 years ago, really doesn't add to you argument of notability./ 6. TreasuryTag; Writing strong keep in bold, followed by no arguments, no new information, no explanation doesn't make for a strong keep. you write: plenty of reliable sources to demonstrate this person's notability. but you offer none. / 7. I think it's time for a Delete (ASA the 7 days are up) as nothing new has been presented during this discussion to support keeping this article and I believe the per nom arguments have been well established (funny enough, mostly by the other side). This article is in clear breach of both Wiki rules and Wiki standards. / P.s- Gwen Gale; Where does it say one vote per editor? Please point me to a link. If an editor has a new, different point to make, I don't see why he/she couldn't start it with another delete. 91.121.124.22 (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC) — 91.121.124.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Formatting condensed for readability, and the !vote from this obvious sockpuppet was boldly un-bolded. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 09:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  In this edit, Special:Contributions/125.25.93.117 (TOT Public Company, Bangkok) tampered with another person's signed comment and made it clear that he or she was Special:Contributions/91.121.124.22 (OVH, France). This makes TreasuryTag's "debolding" of this second "Strong Delete" entirely appropriate. -- Hoary (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  Admin note: 91.121.124.22 (talk · contribs · block log) has been blocked without prejudice as a confirmed open proxy. It may or may not have been used by another user with similar views participating in this debate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  Well, 91.121.124.22 who is the same as 125.25.93.117 and who has a remarkable similarity to Gskphoto, you start off with various unsupported personal comments about Miller that reflect more poorly on you than on him; I'll skip these, and instead move on to your "3": Hoary; You seem to make some excellent points in favor of a Delete, so how come you start with a Keep? I do not know what you mean by saying that I "start with a Keep". ¶ Your "4" 184.76.182.201; the discussion on Lightstalkers.org involves dozens of people condemning Zoriah, not 3. I am yet to see 1 that took his side on the Haiti workshop matter. I wonder why you are so concerned with lightstalkers.org. Anyway, I took a look. In this page there, Miller takes a lot of heat for his Haiti workshop. Those taking his side are inconspicuous. However, he gets a lot of sympathy from Alan Chin and Joseph Molieri (and perhaps others too, but I couldn't be bothered to read this whole page). Now, what's said about Miller in some message forum is of no consequence to an article in Wikipedia, but if you can so mischaracterize the conversation within one website, your credibility plunges. ¶ Your "6": TreasuryTag; Writing strong keep in bold, followed by no arguments, no new information, no explanation doesn't make for a strong keep. This is a comment that you are free to make. (Whether it's justified is a different matter.) What you cannot do is tamper with TreasuryTag's comments. This is something that you have already done; try it again and you'll get a long block. ¶ Your "PS": Where does it say one vote per editor? Please point me to a link. If an editor has a new, different point to make, I don't see why he/she couldn't start it with another delete. First, read about this business here. It's not a vote. If somebody has a new point to make, he or she is free to make it, introduced in some way that is not likely to mislead anyone. -- Hoary (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I have been following this debate on and off since the beginning of the year. I must say I am surprised at the highly passionate level of comments made by those who wish to have the article deleted - often with little substantiation. My own research on Zoriah indicates that he deserves an article in WP, especially given the amount of coverage he has been given in sources other than his own. I just ran a new Google search on "Zoriah Miller" and came up with 26,300 results, including a recent interview. So let's leave the article and hope that those who can offer additional "facts" can add to it with suitable refs. - Ipigott (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• Weak keep Not overly convinced by some of the current sources being used though. The External links section also in desperate need of a despam. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  I linkfarm tagged it. --Tom (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  I'm half tempted to boldly strip out all but the official site. I am a little curious about this "reference" though: http://zoriah.com/wikipediaproof Seems to be a source put together solely the the purpose of Wikipedia - which is not only a problem in itself but it contains scans of copyrighted material. Rehevkor ✉ 16:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  Below, ZM explains that yes it was put together for WP. Copyright matters aside, I see no problem with this, although citing it may not be a good idea. -- Hoary (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  I've removed the link collection. Somebody really ought to find some reliable source on this. Personally if I came across this article on my travels I'd be likely to wipe it clean and start from scratch. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: For the record, I thought I should weigh in here, since it is assumed I already have. I personally feel that everyone would have much more productive lives if they stopped debating mine and got on with their own. I have never claimed to be anything special and if you dont feel that my work merits a page on this site, then so be it. I do not do what I do for prestige, I think there must be much easier ways of going about that than the life I have chosen. You are quite right, I have never won any major awards and I suppose if that is what I will be judged on I should consider submitting some images to one of the contests sometime. However that does not interest me and I feel my time is better spent working than trying to win prizes for the work. I am pleased with the awards and honors that have been given to me over the years, even if they dont meet my peers standards. // I have also been happy, for the most part, to have a wikipedia page. I feel that it leads people to my work and allows them to become more educated on subjects that they may otherwise know little about. I did not start the page and have done little to maintain it, as I have been lucky and until recently had many people support my work and very few that were offended by it. I have, upon requests from a friend of mine who has been following this more closely than I have, posted whatever tear sheets and other information I have on my hard drive, to hopefully end some of these debates. You can find them placed in no particular order, here http://zoriah.com/wikipediaproof My thanks to those who have supported me on this thread and for those who have not, I apologize for taking so much of your time and energy for whatever it was I did that has made you so upset. // Zoriah Miller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.63.172 (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  A photograph released under a Creative Commons Attribution license would make a good edition to the article... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. This has long been a problematic article. There does seem to have been some effort at times to aggrandize ZM's work. There's certainly been considerable effort to belittle it. At least one person who is not ZM seems quite obsessed with ZM; this is mostly rather sad, occasionally it's (unintentionally) funny, but anyway it's irrelevant to the article-worthiness of ZM -- as are the obvious but fixable defects in the rather poor article that we now have on him. What's sure is that ZM has been discussed by sources of concern to WP for two easily separable matters: (i) his publication of photographs of dead US military personnel and the reaction to this, and, later, (ii) his Haiti workshop. Thus he's a person of note, and he is so for more than one event. Ergo he merits an article. I hope that this article is informative, honest and fair, and invite level-headed people to participate in this -- those who intend to laud or decry should instead do so on their own websites, or, better still, should turn off their computers and go out somewhere with camera in hand. -- Hoary (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - this article has issues with WP:BLP1E, in that the majority of the reliable sources cover him in the context of one event. However, I think there are just about enough other sources to demonstrate long-term notability: e.g. [1],[2],[3],[4]. Robofish (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You win, I'm out. (As this is most probably what you really wanted.) I have no patience for double standards and online bullying. And this comment will probably be deleted too.

Every delete except for one delete and one weak delete were stroked, unbolded or simply deleted altogether. "My" detailed reply in bullet points was "reformatted for readability" to a point (quite on purpose i believe) that is now completely unreadable. (Where in the world does a continuous block of text more readable than a nicely formatted paragraph with bullet points?) I guess that if you're not part of the elite wiki editors, you don't have the right to speak here.

I've been attacked for: not formatting properly, not using the right abbreviations and codes, having a grudge, an axe to grind, a personal relation with the subject and a single purpose account. Accused of being in Singapore, Bangkok and Paris all at once. Logging in from 3 different IP addresses and user accounts all at the same time. Identified as someone I am not. My friendly attempt to get people off their very high tree and get back to a civil discussion was quite simply deleted. I was repeatedly threatened to be blocked for "tampering with comments" although my comments are continuously tampered with, and so are other people who backed the delete request (These are, of course, said to all be me. I fly around the world just to sign in and create so called "sockpuppets").

Even my simple attempt at following the rule by pointing them out to some of you brought the saddest response on your part, you were left "linkless"... You may have your own set of rules, but nowhere on Wikipedia does it say that a single user cannot offer different Delete and Strong Delete points. But still, you think you rule your little wiki world, so you dismiss and berate anyone who doesn't think exactly like you. (I'm sure Gwen Gale and some of you are still looking for a link to show me I'm wrong. Well, good luck in the search.)

So, I hope you enjoy having this ridiculous little page on your pristine website, its mere existence says more about you than anything you've said or done here.

No matter what is said here, Anyone who is anyone photojournalism, and has heard the name Zoriah Miller before, knows that he is a disgrace to our dying profession. Nothing you do here will change that.

Goodbye Wikipedia bullies. You win. Gskphoto (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

[I've reformatted Gskphoto's comment above, from bulleted to conventionally paragraphed. (In case he's reading this:) The simple reason being that within an AfD bulleted points are associated with different writers. -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)]

My friendly attempt to get people off their very high tree and get back to a civil discussion was quite simply deleted. I can't think of any deletion that might be meant here other than this one. If it is that one, then here's a confession that its author 125.25.93.117 and Gskphoto are identical. We've already seen that 125.25.93.117 and 91.121.124.22 are identical. No need for any contributor to fly between Thailand and France for this feat; rather, the contributor in Thailand sometimes was logged on, sometimes wasn't, and sometimes used a French open proxy and sometimes didn't. Every bolded word "delete" but one from him was indeed debolded -- and rightly so, as they were merely duplicates. ¶ Gskphoto, you have perhaps confused (a) article-worthiness with (b) genuine quality or notability. They're unrelated, which helps to explain how it is that hundreds of worthwhile photographers don't have articles, and why reality show contestants, Playboy "playmates", US AM radio hosts, minor members of the Bush dynasty and other nobodies do have them. ¶ If you believe that somebody who gets an article at WP is a disgrace to his or her or your profession, then this is something that you are welcome to express (as far as libel laws permit) on some other website, perhaps your own. -- Hoary (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

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.