Zero-point energy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margita Bangová: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
Sadi Carnot (talk | contribs) added history |
+ Oh, please! |
||
Line 1:
===[[Margita Bangová]]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}}
:{{la|Margita Bangová}} – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margita Bangová|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 19#{{anchorencode:Margita Bangová}}|View log]])</noinclude>
This biographical article lacks notability, Wikipedia is [[WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information|is not an indiscriminate collection of information]]. Probably the intent of its creation is Romani bashing. There are so many locally known beggars and con-artists of other ethnicities presented in local newspapers, but they are not entitled to an wiki article. The biography itself is not entitled for a wiki article, has no encyclopedic value. There is no necessity to make a wiki article about a shaking beggar holding a sign reading "Please help me. I am poor. I will pray for you", belonging to a non-mainstream minority, usually subject for bashing. Also its redirects should be deleted: [[Shaky Lady]], [[Margita Bangova]], [[Margita Horvathová]], [[Margita Horvathova]] [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral-देसीफ्राल]] 10:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
*I am familar with the aforementioned beggar. I doubt many beggars have reached her notability and notoriorty. She made the front cover of various national newspapers! I don't think this is Gypsy bashing at all, there is no POV in this article. Check out its talkpage, everyone seems rather happy with it. --[[User:125.237.100.214|125.237.100.214]] 10:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:This is what I'm saying too, that "everyone seems rather happy with it", it is just a minority bashing. [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral-देसीफ्राल]] 10:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:Note that the above IP is currently listed at [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hayden5650]], likely to belong to [[User:Hayden5650]], currently at the third block because of, among other things, Romani bashing. [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral-देसीफ्राल]] 10:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
::Cheers for the heads-up Desiphral, I didn't realise that! I hope that checkuser gets sorted soon, how long does it normally take? Seems half of NZs IPs are listed there ;) {{unsigned|125.237.100.214}}
*'''Keep'''. I wrote the article and can assure you that I am in no way racist. I'm not even sure where you would have gotten that idea; Bangova is notorious not because she's a gypsy or a beggar but because she's a con artist whose deceptive attempts to garner pity went far beyond the norm. She was featured on the cover page of a major newspaper, has been the subject of multiple subsequent articles in other newspapers, and IIRC was even covered on the national television news (CTV). [[WP:CENSOR|Wikipedia is not politically correct]] and should not be removing articles on well-known criminals just because they happen to be members of an ethnic minority. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] 12:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:Do you imply there are no White Canadians beggars with such deceptive attempts? There are many pictures circulating on Internet with North American White beggars employing all kind of pity-empathy-amusement ''attractions'' like "need funding for alcohol research" and many others. "Far beyond the norm" is your POV, what mattered was the ethnicity, anyone may see in the article's History and in the talk page that most of the users who supported the article come or have links with Eastern Europe, expressing the discrimination from this area. She became well-known because she is Romani, the mass-media presents what the people want to read. However, this does not make this person notable in this "field". [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral-देसीफ्राल]] 12:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
::No, I am stating that few other deceptive beggars have received cover stories from prominent local papers, articles in national papers, and reports on CTV. You can believe if you want that she is being vilified by the news media for being Romani, but that doesn't change the fact that she's [[WP:N|notable]] according to Wikipedia's policies. If you have an issue with the way the article is written, then rewrite the article; don't try to have it deleted. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] 12:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Notability implies also an encyclopedic value of the article. What is the encyclopedic value in the tabloids' presentations of a shaking beggar, belonging to a non-mainstream minority, usually subject for bashing? [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral-देसीफ्राल]] 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep'''. If we can keep the article on a New Zealand socialite<s>s</s> whose only claim to fame is her marriage to a former cricket player, this article certainly establishes notability. The subject was featured on national television and in national periodicals for her <s>periodicals</s> actions. The article is sourced (though not cited as thoroughly as I would like), so there is no good reason to delete. The claims of racism are spurious and violate [[WP:AGF]] (and given the ethnicity of the accusers, are probably suspect anyway). I do not see how this article violates [[WP:NPOV]]: the fact that the subject was Romani may have contributed to her notoriety, but this article does not cast aspersions upon her for her ethnicity. --[[User:Nonstopdrivel|Nonstopdrivel]] 13:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:I don't know which "New Zealand socialite" you're talking about, but I doubt that including an article about her could be construed as libel or racism. How do you know for sure she was "featured...for her actions"? Many Afro-Americans are featured on TV shows like ''[[Cops (TV series)|Cops]]'' in the US, but they are featured mainly for their ethnicity by admission of the director himself. It's entirely possible that "(t)he subject" was singled out just for being Romani; this has happened countless times and still happens.
:The only source provided is a tabloid, by admission of the author; the CTV report cited itself draws from the tabloid, and "CityPulse News" is apparently not reliable/noteworthy enough to have earned a Wikipedia article. You accuse Desiphral of violating a Wikipedia rule by suspecting him partly based on his ethnicity; isn't that in itself a violation of [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|another rule]]?
:This article is NPOV because it is mainly cited from one source (and a tabloid at that) and includes no information on how the Romani community perceives this. This is very important information, especially if Margita Bangová really did encourage Czech Romanies to move to Canada. Surely some Romanies must have been aware of this encouragement if it really did happen; what do they have to say? If this is as famous as it is made out to be, surely Romani scholars must be aware of it, too. What do ''they'' have to say, and how is this article legitimate if it does not include their views? --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 01:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:::The New Zealand socialite referred to is [[Sally Ridge]], a television personality who had a high enough profile for an article (including considerable television work) long before she married Adam Parore, the cricketer mentioned. In any case, Nonstopdrivel, [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] is not a valid reason for keeping an article. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 02:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::Some "delete" voters have some legitimate arguments, but others are simply grasping at straws. Let's start with the impugning of sources. Contrary to what you write, [[CityPulse]] was (at the time) a nationally syndicated television news program, and has had a Wikipedia article since 2004. Other sources include Toronto's largest newspaper, the [[Toronto Star|Star]], and the two largest national news services in Canada, [[CTV]] and [[CBC]]. Moving on to the issue that these news sources are deliberately attacking Bangová because she is a gypsy, I doubt that's the case, as most of the articles don't even mention her ethnicity. But even if it were true, it seems to me that people researching institutional anti-gypsy sentiment would find this incident a particularly notable example. Shall we also delete ''[[The Eternal Jew (film)|The Eternal Jew]]'' simply because it paints Jews in a bad light and plays upon the negative stereotypes people hold about Jews? —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] 02:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:::This comparation with ''The Eternal Jew'' is really ridiculous and from a Romani point of view it is perceived as ironical. Nowadays it is recognized that this film is just anti-Jewish propaganda, based on the centuries-old prejudices and this is the way it is presented in the article. But this ''Margita Bangova'' issue is presented the way ''The Eternal Jew'' was presented in the Nazi Germany. Somehow the fact that you pointed to this example may bring a clarification about this issue. The acceptance of this article implies that Wikipedia should reflect the racist prejudices of many among the contemporary English-speaking people, that here it is possible and socially accepted (the same as in many cases of real life) to make anti-Romani propaganda. The fact is that nowadays, while it is not possible to make anti-Jewish propaganda, in real life (including Canada, as this media hoax shows) it is possible to make anti-Romani propaganda. The question is: if the majority of the contemporary World-wide English speaking people see nothing bad in promoting the anti-Romani prejudices is it necessary to appear they also at English Wikipedia? Because this presentation is similar with that of ''The Eternal Jew'' in the Nazi Germany, just propaganda. As Kuaichik wrote before, "If this is as famous as it is made out to be, surely Romani scholars must be aware of it, too. What do ''they'' have to say, and how is this article legitimate if it does not include their views?" Must English Wikipedia reflect the contemporary prejudices accepted by the majority, even when it is obvious they are as such and not "reality" as many users keep describing all this hoax? [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral-देसीफ्राल]] 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Fine, my mistake, CityPulse (or rather [[CityNews]]) does have its own Wikipedia article. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the sources are all incredibly one-sided. Most of them are not only from the same tabloid but also from the same ''reporter''! And even if the Star is Toronto's largest newspaper, that doesn't make it a reliable source, since you have admitted that it is a tabloid. Finally, this is not a "particularly notable example" of anti-Romani discrimination. How can you put a mere panhandler on the same footing as, say, [[Jimmy Marks]], who indeed is a particularly notable example of institutional anti-Romani discrimination? --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 23:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::First you falsely claim that [[CityPulse]] has no Wikipedia article, and now you are falsely claiming that I said the ''[[Toronto Star]]'' was a tabloid. If you're not going to bother to read, [[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]], then I see no point in continuing this argument. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] 03:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, my mistake again. I must have meant the ''[[Toronto Sun]]'', which is the main source in this article and which you said "may be a tabloid," a bit further down on this page. And since the other mistake (concerning [[CityNews]] a.k.a. CityPulse) seems to bother you, I apologize for that as well, though I already pointed it out. I'm not lying, just making a couple of mistakes, and I agree, those two mistakes are entirely my fault. --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 02:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Not notable in an encyclopaedic sense. Being a nine-day wonder in the local papers is hardly basis for inclusion in wikipedia [[User:Trugster|Trugster]] 14:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
**She has received occasional coverage in the local and national press for five years, with articles as recent as 16 June 2007. I don't think this qualifies as a "nine-day wonder". —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] 14:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This presence in mass media express only the racist POV of some people, they are offered what they want to read. There are enough White beggars, shaky or other way. Do you imagine a mass media coverage about them? What would be the necessity? So, again, here we are not gathering an indiscriminate collection of information, which may have some media coverage because of the racist POV. The biography itself is not entitled for a wiki article. [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral-देसीफ्राल]] 14:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
*: She was also mentioned in Washington Post and in the Czech Republic news (because of the visa problem). The Czech Wiki article had survived their [http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedie:Hlasov%C3%A1n%C3%AD_o_smaz%C3%A1n%C3%AD/Margita_Bangov%C3%A1 2005 VfD] for that reason. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 04:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::Oh, goody, I suppose this makes her oh so relevant. Besides, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Czech Wikipedia. <small>My guess is the Czech Wikipedia has no Romani members.</small> --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 04:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy Delete:''' per G10 as egregious attack article. "With her shabby clothing, cane, and apparently uncontrollable full-body trembling, she became known as the "Shaky Lady" and was regarded as a wretched object of pity." [[User:RGTraynor|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:Cyan"> RGTraynor </span>''']] 14:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
**Everything in the article came from published sources, though they were not cited at the time the article was written. I've just added four references for the sentence you quote (themselves containing quotes from interviews about people's reactions to Bangova). I don't see how it's such an attack, though, to report what others have published. The article now has only a couple outstanding {{tl|fact}} templates. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] 15:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
***Again, notability implies also an encyclopedic value of the article. What is the encyclopedic value in the tabloids' presentations of a shaking beggar holding a sign reading "Please help me. I am poor. I will pray for you", belonging to a non-mainstream minority, usually subject for bashing? [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral-देसीफ्राल]] 15:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
****The [[Toronto Sun]] may be a tabloid, but the [[Toronto Star]] is not, and neither is [[CTV News]]. If this is a conspiracy by the racist Canadian media to vilify gypsies, then surely that conspiracy itself is notable, this incident being a particularly notable example. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] 15:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
***** Mike Strobel from [[Toronto Sun]] is the main journalist who profited from making articles about her, while other publications just wrote what it seems to be socially accepted racist POV in Canada. The texts of these articles are obviously trying to stir anti-Romani feelings both in Canada ("Gypsies, come to Canada!", implying that all the Romani persons are just copycats of Bangova) and in Eastern Europe (naming her as "an ambassador of the Czech Republic"). They never seem to be interested who are the Roma, if she is representative for the Romani people. I repeat, her biography is not notable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it is just the usual media hoax regarding the Romani people, pushing in front a non-notable individual fitting the "Gypsy" image, just for stirring passions. [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral-देसीफ्राल]] 16:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:::* Well, it has stirred your passions, and consumed much of your time. You seems that have written more here than is in the article itself. --[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] 02:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
***'''Reply:''' Allow me to quote from [[WP:BLP]]: "In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When writing about a person who is only notable for one or two events, including every detail, no matter how well-sourced, can lead to problems ... When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." An attack page is an attack page. [[User:RGTraynor|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:Cyan"> RGTraynor </span>''']] 16:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep and address "fact tags"''' It is well documented, but needs to be even better referenced to address concerns of living people. There never should have been the word "notorious" in any article on a living person. Please make sure every sentence or paragraph is referenced. --[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] 16:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
**The same question: what is encyclopedic in this biography? All the info is focused on stirring passions. [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral-देसीफ्राल]] 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' There appears to have been a crusade by one newspaper columnist against one beggar whose performance art was to shake her body all day. This seems as worth of deletion on BLP grounds as other recent deletions of other articles about people who also had newspaper stories about them. She is no more encyclopedic that hundreds of thousands of other beggers, but seems to have become a target. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep'''. It's an article about a person who gained minor notoriety in Canada. It's not an extraordinarily important article, but the main reason for this AfD is because Desiphral doesn't like the reality of the article, for purely racial reasons. And that's not a reason for deleting an article.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 18:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
**Do you mean that this article presents the reality, the truth about the Romani people? This is itself a serious racist allegation. Please explain further what you mean. Because all the notoriety came from the Romani (so-called "Gypsy") background, by exploiting the "Gypsy" image, by stirring hate both in Canada and in Eastern Europe. This is how this person is presented. The biography itself of this person does not deserve a wiki article. [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral-देसीफ्राल]] 19:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
***Truth about the Romani people?!? That's precisely my point, it's not about the Romani people. Argue about whether or not she's notable and verifiable, not about how we should delete her article for racial reasons.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 19:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
****Then to what "reality" did you point to? Because all her presentation was in the direction of making her a typical "Gypsy" person, the usual "discrimination management" that picks some non-representative Roma, selects negative things about them, then presents them as the true "Gypsies". In the meantime, the same image creators do not make the same negative selections with people from their own group and do not present really representative Romani people. Do you know anything else about this person, beyond the steretypical characterization from the tabloids? What is the reason for giving her a wiki article? For fitting the "Gypsy" stereotypical image? Do you think this is a encyclopaedical reason? I presented already why this biography of a shaky beggar is not worthy a wiki article, including the fact that the person herself was just a common begger targeted by a tabloid's columnist (also per [[User:Edison]] and [[User:RGTraynor]] above). [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral-देसीफ्राल]] 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
*****The reason for giving her a wiki article is because she is a person who has been covered in a prominent fashion repeatedly in major media. If she weren't Romani, you wouldn't care. I'm highly opposed to deleting articles just because they cover a non-politically correct topic.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
******So, now you insinuate that the racist here is me. What reasons do you have to say that I wouldn't care if this person would not have been Romani? Do you imply the other steretoype that the Roma do not care about the broad society? And this is not a simply "non-politically correct topic", it is a usual media hoax about the Roma. [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral-देसीफ्राल]] 21:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
** Change: she has international fame, and has prompted changes in international relations between the Czech Republic and Canada. That makes here notable.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 13:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:I have addressed these comments below. --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 16:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - easily meets [[WP:BIO]] due to coverage in multiple secondary sources and demonstrsble name recognition among substantial populations of Canada and beyond. Also recent addition of sources was addressing {{tl|fact}} tag concerns. [[User:Dl2000|Dl2000]] 21:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
**Does anyone opposing here tries to address the fact that Wikipedia [[WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information|is not an indiscriminate collection of information]]? Again, what's encyclopaedic in this biography? [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral-देसीफ्राल]] 21:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
***The article is not indiscriminate - the only applicable provision in [[WP:UNENC]] is the ''News reports'' criterion, but the subject has been in the news for more than a brief period of time. Also, the established [[WP:N|notability]] outweighs any claim of indiscriminate content. [[User:Dl2000|Dl2000]] 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:The notability is not established (see the comments to the fourth note after this one, as well as the fifth vote). Besides, wasn't she only in the news ''sporadically'', every now and then "for more than a brief period of time" ? --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 02:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. I don't think it's fair to call this article "Romani bashing," but I otherwise agree with the nomination. This is a <i>panhandler</I>, for heaven's sake! Just because a panhandler has been a subject of multiple articles doesn't make her sufficiently notable for Wikipedia.--[[User:Mantanmoreland|Mantanmoreland]] 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. I placed a clean-up tag on the article so that concerns about tone and attacking the subject can be addressed. The series of articles on her was notable and resulted in immigration measures. [[User:Canuckle|Canuckle]] 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
**I note one of the cleanup tags you added was {{tl|orphan}}, which surprised me, as I had added links from other relevant articles. I now see that they have been removed by the [[User:Desiphral]]. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] 23:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:::"Notable" ?! They came from a tabloid! A tabloid is not a notable source. --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 01:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Although I'm sure the article was written in good faith, the rules have changed with regards to biographies. Even if true and well sourced, the potential damage to this individual is greater than the good it does the world to know that there are crooks in the world. [[User_talk:Semperf|<font color="#008000"><b><i>semper fictilis</i></b></font>]] 22:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
::BLP is all about potential libel and reliability. If it's true and well sourced, the potential damage to the individual is not relevant.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 07:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:::''If'' it's true and well sourced. There's no proof that it is. The only sources are the [[Toronto Sun]], a tabloid by admission of the creator of this article, and sources that draw from that tabloid (or, in any case, very dubious sources from the same city). --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 00:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' -- she is very well-known and considered notable in Canada. Her notoriety here, as shown by the mutliple references, is what makes this an indiscriminate collection of information about a pan-handler. The fact-tag and the anti-Romani POV must be addressed, but AfD is not an appropriate mechanism for addressing those concerns. Her behaviour and activities have been well-documented in the third party sources. We must not shy away from having bios on living people because of perceived "potential damage". (What potential damage? That people may stop being conned by her?) [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 22:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
**Since when was she considered notable "in Canada"? Toronto =/= Canada, and I certainly never heard of her. I have heard of numerous other scam artists pretending to be homeless/disabled, so it isn't like she is unique in this regard either. [[User:Resolute|Resolute]] 23:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
***Oh, well, if ''you'' haven't heard of her, then she can't be notable. Personally, I come to Wikipedia to learn about things that I don't know about, not just read about things I already know about. She's been covered repeatedly in the Toronto Star which, while it is published in Toronto, is widely read across Ontario, and is the largest selling newspaper in Canada. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 02:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
****No, I am merely pointing out that Toronto is not the centre of the universe, and that asserting this individual is notable "in Canada" when she has only a local "following" is ridiculous. Regardless, my delete vote stands: just because she appeared in the newspaper a few times, she is not automatically notable. No more so than any random local individual who gets a writeup in the local paper. [[User:Resolute|Resolute]] 02:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' newsworthy is not noteworthy. [[User:Resolute|Resolute]] 23:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' No offense intended, but there is a Kurdish proverb that says: "If a fool drops a coin into the river, a hundred wise men will never be able to get it out." Similarly, if one editor creates a misleading or inappropriate article that supports the "gypsy" stereotype, a hundred more will never be able to undo the damage by creating articles about similar non-Romanies. If non-Romanies who have done similar things do not have articles on Wikipedia, there's no reason why a Romani should. Just because [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral]] and I object on this basis doesn't mean it is our responsibility to create articles for non-Romanies who have done such things. Obviously ''we'' did not cause the article to be misleading! The burden lies on the careless creator of this article, not on those who point out his carelessness. --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::Again, purely political correctness. It's not about whether she's Romani or not; it's about whether the facts are true.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 07:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:::So it isn't even known whether the facts are true! In that case, why should this article exist? If it isn't about whether she's Romani, why is she (apparently) the only panhandler to have her own article on Wikipedia? --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 00:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::::She's not: [[Bampfylde Moore Carew]], [[Ryan Larkin]]. [[User:Dl2000|Dl2000]] 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::These articles only support the fact that Margita Bangova's biography is not worthy a wiki article, except the desire for enforcing anti-Romani stereotypes. In these examples, both persons were actively involved in presenting and creating their image (compare with a tabloid campaingn against an usual beggar) and they really did something worthy to remember. There are not non-Romani articles to compare with Bangova's. [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral-देसीफ्राल]] 08:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' seriously, i can't believe this conversation has gone on this long. notable person with several independent sources. nominator doesn't specifically name any wp policy that this article violates. However, this article does need to be cleaned up ''considerably.'' The nominator has violated the "assume good faith doctorine." Now, in regards to whether or not this is a 'racist' article or not....plain and simple it doens't matter. subject is notable and therefore gets an article. END OF STORY. it clearly states in wp policy that an article (like this) which has POV problems should be tagged as such and hopefully improved. That has been done. END OF STORY. nothing else needs to happen. someone either improves this or not. The arguments about this perpetuating racism etc. are not lost on me at all, so don't bother trying to explain them. i see your point, but ultimately it does not matter, whether this person is notably for something good or something bad, it should be included. if the nominator can find good sources for the claim that the man at the toronto sun is a racist and what not, that SHOULD be included and MUST be included. until then....sorry, give it up. [[User:Barsportsunlimited|Barsportsunlimited]] 00:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:No, this isn't the end of the story. In 1990, a Romani woman and her daughter were given a sentence of more than 200 years for cheating a client out of thousands of dollars in New York. In the same week, a (non-Romani) televangelist in Atlanta cheated the public out of ''millions'' of dollars and was released after just a few days. To uphold this article is like saying that we should create an article about the lady in New York without pointing towards the stereotyping, no?
:"...several independent sources" Really? Where? All I see is the ''Toronto Star'', which is just one tabloid.
:"nominator doesn't specifically name any wp policy that this article violates." Yes, he does. Read his first and last comments on this page!
:"The nominator has violated the 'assume good faith doctorine.'" OK, I'll admit I can't address this point too strongly. Let me just say that I wouldn't accuse him of this, if I were you. When he called [[User:Hayden5650|Hayden5650]] a "vandal," I thought maybe he was going too far, but no, he was proven to be right.
:You say it doesn't matter whether this article is racist or not just because it's notable? So does that mean we can include articles on "low Negro IQ," or "gypsy swindling," or "Jewish cheating," or "why all Indians are either doctors or engineers"? Of course not, because ''none of these are true'', even though they are all notable stereotypes. The evidence that the information in this article is true is weak.
:"subject is notable and therefore gets an article." Actually, this is disputed, too. See the comment two votes above yours, as well as the response to the vote before that.
:"if the nominator can find good sources for the claim..." Again, why should ''he'' find good sources? He never added that claim to the article. He has only posted that claim on this talk page. Whether there are sources to prove this or not is not really the point here. The point is, this article has no reliable sources and is potentially quite harmful to an already under-represented ethnicity. --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 01:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::Actually, we do have articles on the topics you mention. Check out [[:Category:Stereotypes]] for a list. We even have articles that discuss racist canards (e.g., [[:Category:Antisemitic canards]]), which is what you allege the coverage of Bangová to be. If you can provide any published sources claiming or proving that Bangová is a scapegoat for anti-gypsy sentiment, then you can add it to a category on anti-gypsy canards. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] 02:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Are you claiming again that the responsibility lies upon ''me'' to find more sources? The article only includes a few sources, practically all of which espouse the same POV and are all from Toronto. --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 00:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' There is enough coverage in [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] to write a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. Since the topic has received significant coverage in [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that are [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources|independent]] of the subject, the topic is [[Wikipedia:Notability|Wikipedia notable.]] The facts in the article are interconnected to each other, so the article does not come across as an indiscriminate collection of information. As for BLP concerns, any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person under [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed_decision#Summary_deletion_of_BLPs|summary deletion]] if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant BLP policy. This has not been done and other BLP concerns can be taken care of by fixing the article or through other Wikipedia processes. Thus, I believe Keep is appropriate. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''[[User:Jreferee|<font color="Blue">Jreferee]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Jreferee|Talk]])''</sup></font></font> 07:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:Again, just because the Toronto Sun is widely published doesn't make it a reliable source. I repeat, it is a tabloid by admission of the creator of the article. And how do you know "there is enough coverage...to write a neutral and unbiased" article? There is no evidence of that in the article; all of the sources are biased toward the same opinion. And the articles available online are very editorial in style as well. --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 00:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::And the references from CTV News, CBC, CityPulse and eye weekly? Are they are unreliable sources? [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 01:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Not to mention the story was picked up by the [[Canadian Press]], printed by the Regina Leader-Post, and likely other papers outside Toronto. [[User:Dl2000|Dl2000]] 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::::I never said the rest are unreliable sources, as far as the reliability of the publication itself goes. The CityPulse articles, as I noted earlier, are editorial in style. They are not the kind of article you would find in a standard newspaper (outside of the editorial section). The CTV News article is based on the articles from the Sun. The CBC article is very vague and got some of its information from the Sun also. And the Eye Weekly article is actually criticizing the coverage; it is no source to justify the existence of this article. And finally, as for the story being "picked up" by national news agencies - exactly. It was ''picked up'' from the Sun, a tabloid that is cited in the article as the primary source. (Not only that, but the author of a good many of the sources is the same!!) --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 03:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
::It is the Wikipedia article that needs to be unbiased. The sources do not need to be online to be Wikipedia reliable. The topic spans at least from 2002 to 2007, giving it more of a long-term historical notability. If the topic really is a BLP problem, an admin can deleted even after this AfD as I noted above. Other BLP problems can be handled by editing the article or posting at [[WP|BLPN]] if outside intervention is needed. [[WP:BLP]] seems to permit an article on a person who is only notable for one or two events so long as the article is not sensationalist or titillating and does not include every detail to the point where it can lead to problems. In fact, rather than delete the article, [[WP:BLP]] suggest that, when in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. I don't know if I have "the right answer", but I'm trying my best to apply all these new process items as best as I can. -- <font face="Kristen ITC">'''[[User:Jreferee|<font color="Blue">Jreferee</font>]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Jreferee|Talk]])''</sup></font> 21:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I never said the sources needed to be online. I simply referred to some of the sources, which happened to be online. And in fact, my point is that those online sources are ''not'' reliable, not on the basis of whether they're online or not but on the basis of how editorial they are.
:::"The topic spans at least from 2002 to 2007..." Maybe, but only sporadically, right? If I understood correctly, she only appeared in Canadian newspapers every now and then within that period; it seems there was no steady coverage on her.
:::[[WP:Biographies of living persons|BLP]] also suggests that when in doubt, "the rule of thumb should be 'do no harm.'" This appears to be doing harm to the Romani editors of Wikipedia and the [[Romani people]], as it encourages a stereotype. None of them have shown support for the article on this page; admittedly, there are very few.
:::[[WP:Biographies of living persons|BLP]] continues: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, '''not a tabloid'''" like the main source of this article. --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 02:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong speedy delete''': Besides notability issue (the largest and oldest hospital of Nepal called Bir Hospital was not considered to be noteworthy by gnomes here, just for the records), I think that mentioning her to be a Roma and East European aids for the "stereotypical" mindset. If the article is to stay (which I strongly oppose), I would like to request the people involved in editing the article to remove the lines about her ethnicity and Eastern European background which has nothing to do with Eastern Europe or her begging. Thank you. --[[User:Eukesh|Eukesh]] 15:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
**[[WP:SOFIXIT|SOFIXIT]] yourself. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] 17:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]], you seem to have this strange idea that if someone believes the article should be deleted, they should improve the article. That makes no sense! How can anyone advocate the deletion of an article to which they have contributed? The point is that the very basis of this article is faulty, therefore it cannot be fixed simply by editing and must be deleted. --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 02:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
'''Discussion:''' Racism vs. Political Correctness aside, I'm not sure this is a good article to keep. Please read these exerpts from [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]]:
:*Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When writing about a person who is only notable for one or two events, including every detail, no matter how well-sourced, can lead to problems.
:*Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip, much of it false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopedic article on that subject.
:*For example, Category:Criminals should only be added if the incident is relevant to the person's notability; it has been published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. ''(I don't think the article suggests that Bangova has been convicted of fraud, or even charged, yet the article is categorized as [[:Category:Confidence tricksters]]. This is quite possibly libelous.)''
So essentially, this woman is not particularly notable. Any notability she has is from a sensationalized newspaper (while other media simply repeated the story) and not from any actual charges, court cases, or so on. Once the confidence tricksters category is removed, she will simply be a "person from toronto" and a "Romani person."
Please not that, on her talk page, someone early on who supported the article noted:
"''OMG! I can't believe there is actually an article on Wikipedia about "Shakey Lady"! I hope this article will expose her con to the entire world!''"
This shows both disbelief that the article could be considered encyclopedic, and clear personal POV.
Anyway, that's my two cents. - [[User:Themightyquill|TheMightyQuill]] 02:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
'''Comment:''' [[User:Psychonaut]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FNovoselsky_Valery&diff=139898358&oldid=139897158 voted] for delete on another AfD about a Romani person, an important contemporary Romani activist. Why that person should not have an article and this one should have? The stereotypes and the prejudices prevail? Because of the Romani ethnicity, the beggar remains and the activist is out? Just compare the biographies of these two persons. [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral-देसीफ्राल]] 14:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
: You're linking to an autobiographical article that has no solid editors voting to keep; you, for instance, haven't voted to keep, at least to as of the point I was writing this. And activists are boring; a list of mailing lists and organizations doesn't a notable individual make. We don't have a lot of activists for the same reasons we don't have a lot of CEOs and business people; they may make the world run, but they don't make for interesting reading. Flashy con artists, on the other hand, tend to be more interesting.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
'''Comment:''' Flashy con artists are more interesting for the ones who want the Roma to be seen as "Flashy con artists" and not as equal citizens and neighbours. Stereotyping of ethnicity is not a positive trend and I hope that this respected on-line encyclopedia will not encourage such views. [[User:Valery novoselsky|Valery novoselsky]]
<small>— [[User:Valery novoselsky|Valery novoselsky]] ([[User talk:Valery novoselsky|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Valery novoselsky|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. {{ #if: {{{2|}}} | The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC{{{3|}}}).}}</small>
:I agree [[User:RomanyChaj|RomanyChaj]] <small>— [[User:RomanyChaj|RomanyChaj]] ([[User talk:RomanyChaj|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RomanyChaj|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. {{ #if: {{{2|}}} | The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC{{{3|}}}).}}</small>
::So do I. By the way, [[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]], [[User:Desiphral|Desiphral]] ''had'' voted to keep the article, even before you made your post; look at the link he gave above. And Wikipedia is not about what you find boring or interesting; it is about what is, in fact, worthy of being documented in an encyclopedia.
::I don't know about the notability of the [[Roma Virtual Network]] or [[Novoselsky Valery]], because I have never looked at the Roma Virtual Network. Therefore, I will mind my own business and keep my nose out of it (provided I do not get to know it better, for whatever reason). --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 02:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::An encyclopedia should have articles that people want to look up; that is, which are interesting. From another angle, Wikipedia should be [[WP:V]]erifiable, and to be verifiable, you have to be interesting enough to be written about. There's quite a few books written about con-artists, but a book gets written about a activist only when violent acts are done by or to them.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 13:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
: To remain respected, we must continue to cover things that are verifiable and notable, and not things that are politically correct. It does not help Wikipedia at all to ignore things because the Roma (or any other group) don't like them.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 13:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, well, different people want to look up different things. Different people consider different things interesting; preferences vary. Those involved in Romani Studies may want to know what the Rom Virtual Network is, or what its creator has done.
::Con artists of this kind do not typically earn encyclopedia entries, so neither should this Margita Bangová. There is some (not much) evidence that the reports from ''The Sun'' are verifiable and very little evidence that Bangová is notable. --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 16:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. She is remembered at least in the Czech Republic. A TV documentary (where she claimed how easy life she has now and that the others should follow her) had prompted a large flow of Roma from the Czech Republic to Canada (about [http://www.blisty.cz/files/isarc/9808/19980803g.html 1500] in total). Canada almost immediatelly reacted with enforcing a strict visa requirement for all citizens of the Czech Republic (1998) and the visa status remains valid until today (at least into 2009). It is described e.g. in [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/americas/sep/03/gypsies.htm Washington Post] article. Similar event (such a claims in a TV programme) occured later in Great Britain. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 03:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:Maybe ''you'' and some other Czechs remember her. How about Czech Romanies? Do they remember any such thing? This is not a strong argument to support keeping this article. --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 03:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:: Those ~1,500 people probably do remember (most had returned or have been returned). [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 04:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::"Probably" is not enough to save this article. --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 04:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::: Well, the situation is: she had appeared on [[TV Nova]], what she said was a starting point for what made a significant impact on the whole Czech Republic (perceived until today) and her name and her role is quite recognizable (as well as role of Josef Klima, the TV reporter who later shot similar scene bringing Britain on edge of visa requirement). How much more do you need? [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 04:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::A ton. Just because she appeared on one TV report in a country notorious for anti-Romani riots doesn't mean she is notable enough, or that this article is not simply based on [[antiziganism]] (whether this happened intentionally or not I can't say), or that any of the other concerns that have been voiced here have been adequately addressed. --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 05:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::: While the discussion goes off-topic: on area of the Czech Republic there has been no etnically motivated riots since the end of the WW2 because of high ethnical homogenity of the country. What constitutes anti-Romany is a question of opinion, but the country allocates about 2% of GDP as direct social payments for them (totally ~20% of GDP goes to direct social payments), in addition to resources for education, housing (by municipalities) and grant based system for social integration. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 12:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::So she prompted the movement of 1500 people by an appearence on TV in the Czech Republic, prompting a change in Candian law, and repeatedly appeared in Candian newspapers, and this international notority and reaction isn't notable? What does it matter whether Czech has had ethnically motivated revolts or not?--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] 13:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Czech Republic|list of Czech Republic-related deletions]]. </small> <small>-- [[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] 08:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)</small>
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ontario|list of Ontario-related deletions]]. </small> <small>-- [[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] 08:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)</small>
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People|list of People-related deletions]]. </small> <small>-- [[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] 09:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)</small>
:'''Discussion''': I don't believe she was the focus of the documentary, simply one rom interviewed among many. She was among a number of Roma living in Canada that claimed there was less racism in Canada against Roma (most Canadians could not identify someone as Roma) which caused the increase in emigration, a number of czech towns to offer to buy Roma flights to Canada, and then a change in Canadian immigration law (partly at the request of some prominent Roma activists). Simply appearing as an interviewee doesn't make you notable. I would be very surprised if a substantial number of czechs can actually remember her name. Certainly, no one that I met during the year I lived in Prague ever talked about her to me. - [[User:Themightyquill|TheMightyQuill]] 15:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::I don't think anyone is suggesting that her appearance in the documentary alone makes her notable, though along with all the other references it does support the claim that she is notable. And as long as we're contributing anecdotal evidence, when I was last in Prague one of the residents did indeed mention her to me by name. But whether any one Czech person knows her is hardly evidence of her notability one way or another. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] 15:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::To Pavel Vozenilek and Prosfilaes: The claim that there have been no ethnically "motivated riots since the end of WW2" in the Czech Republic is false; there are plenty of news reports to prove that wrong, and the existence of blatantly anti-Romani riots in the Czech Republic (and generally in eastern Europe) up to this day (or at least quite recently) is quite well known among experts in Romani Studies such as Prof. [[Ian Hancock]]. But anyway, since you currently find this off-topic, I will not dwell on it here and now. As for the issues mentioned by [[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]]: first of all, the only evidence provided of the figure 1500 is from a mere Internet daily called [[Britské listy]].
:::Second, just because she appeared once on TV in the Czech Republic, in addition to appearing in a Canadian tabloid (and subsequently in some other newspapers), doesn't mean she has "international notority"; you can see for yourself that there are users even from Canada on this page who do not consider her notable! She has been ''mentioned'' in three countries (namely, Canada, Czech Republic, and the US); this does not give her "international notority."
:::Third, you have no evidence that ''she'' was the cause of any change in Canadian law. Other than maybe said Czech Internet daily.
:::Fourth, it is very important to consider that the Czech Republic (or Czechoslovakia between WW2 and the [[dissolution of Czechoslovakia]]) has a long history of anti-Romani riots. The anti-Romani discrimination in such countries makes antiziganism all the easier, so any report that supports the "gypsy" stereotype is quite suspect. --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 15:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::BTW, [[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]], thank you for admitting that anecdotal hearsay is not good evidence. --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 15:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::* The figure is from The Globe and Mail, the web page is a Czech translation of the text. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 17:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:: I do remember the documentary (it was aired few times afterwards). The TV in mention is [[TV Nova]], a sensationalist and the most watched in the Czech Republic at the time. The documentary pictured life of immigrated Roma in rose colors (compared to the life in the Czech Republic, which was in an economic slump at the time) and the interview by Barghova did confirm its message. She talked how great life she has there and invited "Fero" (a relative) to move as well. Within days the news spread out and hundredths of people called Canadian embassy and prepared to leave. They bought up all airplane tickets into Montreal and Toronto and sold out their properties. The TVs pictured leaving groups almost daily, foreign minister shuttled back and forth, president Havel had a speech asking them to stay. An overview of the events until visa requirement was established is [http://romove.radio.cz/cz/clanek/18731 here] (in Czech). I cannot find the video itself, TV Nova keeps documentaries online only since 2002. Later, Bangova was mentioned in Czech newspapers in March 2002, referring to a scandal shown by Strobel. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 17:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Whatever. As [[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] has stated above, that documentary alone does not make her notable. --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 20:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Besides, surely you don't actually believe that the appearance of one beggar-woman in a documentary alone caused more than a thousand people to leave. I can believe that this woman appeared in a documentary, I can believe that a lot of Romanies wanted or even tried to leave the Czech Republic (though I doubt that many were successful even in getting a passport and/or boarding the plane), and in fact, I can even believe that this story became popular among some Czechs. But it seems quite odd to even suggest that these events are interconnected! Plus, if [[TV Nova]] is a sensationalist source, it is not reliable by Wikipedia standards. --[[User:Kuaichik|Kuaichik]] 21:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
| |||