Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hal Turner 2

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The result was withdrawn given new version. Will ^(talk) 01:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article should be deleted due to BLP concerns - most (if not all)of the article's history contains some sort of BLP violation, such as a significant amount of POV or uncited statements, and should be deleted per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary_deletion_of_BLPs. Yes, the subject is notable. But, as the article's history shows, the chance of a neutral, cited version given the subject's reputation and the /b/ attack are slim to none. Will ^(talk) 01:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The last pre-blanking version at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hal_Turner&oldid=191392123 seemed fair. Deleting a reliable article on a notable subject because the subject doesn't like it is unwise. Removing valid and well-referenced negative material because the subject wouldn't like it is also unwise. See the history of Prem Rawat for example. And note that the previous AfD reached a consensus of "speedy keep".--Eastmain (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Went through an AFD a year ago, seems to have references for mostly everything. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "Mostly" isn't good enough for a BLP. Will ^(talk) 03:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not take the time to vet the entire article and verify every statement (though I did sample some and verify some references; Hal Turner just doesn't interest me).... until we pass the AFD, the page is blanked anyway. However, uncited material should be dealt with. This article far on the good side of the bell curve for references. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep other than a few unsourced statements which can be easily removed, it looks neutral enough. It can be semi-protected to avert slanderous vandalism. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - before it was blanked, it contained enough sources to prove notability. I also think we should ask Hal Turner if there are any problems he has with the article. Maybe he is fine with it. William Ortiz (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Read the nomination: yes, Turner is notable. And we don't need to ask living people about their biographies to see there's a problem. Will ^(talk) 05:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally think Hal would want his bio here as the whole Hal Turner raids stuff actually got his previously unknown internet radio show a lot more popularity. William Ortiz (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The article, before it was abusively blanked, provided three dozen reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability in the clearest possible manner. As is unfortunately becoming a disturbing trend, the excuse of supposed WP:BLP issues is being maliciously abused as an excuse to delete the article. If there are WP:BLP issues, they need to be identified and cleaned up. Using WP:BLP as an excuse to delete this article is liking using an atom bomb to kill a fly: it might solve the problem, but the side effects are far worse than the supposed cure. Appropriate administrative measures should be taken to prevent further such abuse. Alansohn (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to have been a reliable enough article before it was blanked, might need some work but there should be an article on the guy. Winterborn (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep POV issues can be fixed by means other than deletion. The nom even admits that the subject is notable -- so it may be hard to keep it NPOV, big whoop. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Advertising a white supremacist is not a good thing, and we can leave the "monitoring" to the SPLC and other noble ventures. There is no "notability": there is only popularity, and these are not the same things. Anything, anything at all, on the web will generate "hits." www.carbonatedmilk.com will have hits. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely Keep Turner was recently exposed as an FBI mole in the white supremacist movement. Aside from being involved with many violent racist protests in the U.S., his repeated calls for the murder of various lawyers, judges, and human rights advocates during the time he fed information to the FBI makes him quite noteworthy. Frank Pais (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: As the nomination only cites WP:BLP concerns, the negative information in the article is well sourced by mainstream organizations and newspapers. Further the article in it's last form was as neutral as one can be for a white supremacist. I simply do not see the BLP issues, nor have they ever been pointed out. Any unsourced information can easily be deleted. However, I do question whether the subject has sufficient notability to warrant an article (I recognize I am in the minority on that issue, and concede the point). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cited good and everything. BLP concerns are not a reason to fully delete an article unless it's an attack page. I have restored it with the BLP warning tag, and I've also sent it to WP:RPP so we can get some full protection while we deal with this. ViperSnake151 18:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Close We did this less than a month ago. Nothing has changed. If there are BLP problems than remove them and move on. Mønobi 00:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh, check the datestamps. Thirteen months ago, yes. Will ^(talk) 00:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I'm blind :s Mønobi 00:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Important comment: Myself, Sceptre and Dihydrogen Monoxide have worked on this article in one of my sandboxes, and a better referenced and more neutral version has now been placed in the article space. J Milburn (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2008 (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.