Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Workshop: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
moved bumm13's comment upward, nodded in agreement |
||
Line 273:
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Agreed. If a living person has a legitimate gripe about possible [[libel]]/defamation of character, then that issue needs to be taken up with the Wikimedia Foundation directly. It's not even so much our ''policies'' that dictate this as much as U.S./[[Florida]] state law, etc. (as that is where the Foundation is based) [[User:Bumm13|Bumm13]] 14:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)▼
::Endorse per Bumm13. —<tt class="plainlinks">'''[[Special:Contributions/Freakofnurture|freak]]([{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit§ion=new}} talk])'''</tt> 20:43, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
Line 280 ⟶ 281:
::Of course, there are limits. If [[Bill Clinton]] called into Wikipedia, said that he did not like the fact that we describe him as an impeached president, we would quite rightly ignore it. Because deleting it would seriously compromise Wikipedia's ability to be a comprehensive encyclopedia (and it would give Wikipedia remarkably bad press if people could just get their bios deleted willy-nilly.) If a public figure does not like their bio here, but the person is so clearly notable that deleting it would damage our credibility, then this principle applies in full force. Yes, we should make a strong concerted effort to maintain the article in a [[WP:V|verifiable]] and [[WP:NPOV|neutral]] condition, yes, it should be in accordance with [[WP:BLP]] guidelines, but we cannot go as far as to saying "This person doesn't want an article, so we won't have one".
::Perhaps the Brandt case is one of the borderline issues which makes me so uncertain about what to do here. He is an active activist who maintains a number of sites, and has received a fair amount of media attention, but he is not the kind of person a lay person would be expected to know about, or would expect to see a biography about. I see a number of very strong, very sincere, and very convicted arguments on both sides here. I am torn as to whether the principle here applies for this case. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 13:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
▲::Agreed. If a living person has a legitimate gripe about possible [[libel]]/defamation of character, then that issue needs to be taken up with the Wikimedia Foundation directly. It's not even so much our ''policies'' that dictate this as much as U.S./[[Florida]] state law, etc. (as that is where the Foundation is based) [[User:Bumm13|Bumm13]] 14:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
===The wishes of the subject and Wikipedia articles===
| |||