Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Further discussion on the context of the article should be made on it's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 23:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin, I endorse this close. T. Canens (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System

edit
Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System (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)

This article is in violation of the policy Biographies of living persons. This article was not written to be truly about the lawsuit mentioned and is a Coatrack [WP: COAT] ( This particular lawsuit was filed March 3, 1992 and dismissed only 3 months later on May 27, 1992 and did not even go through the pleading process; this lawsuit is insignificant and as written only serves to damage a living person.)

This article appears to be written only to republish scurrilous allegations made in 1991 about a living person, which allegations were later proven to be untrue and the truth was published in numerous well respected media outlets: |The Boston Globe, ABC, Time Magazine, LA Daily News, Business Wire. The false allegations were made during a 1991 broadcast of a CBS 60 Minutes program, and when the truth came out CBS took the unusual and appropriate action of repudiating the broadcast and removing the tape and transcript from public access: “The ‘60 Minutes’ segment was filled with so many factual discrepancies that the transcript was made unavailable with this disclaimer: ‘This segment has been deleted at the request of CBS News for legal or copyright reasons.’” The Believer. In light of the reliable published sources, this article is inaccurate and damaging to a living person, and I request that this article be deleted.

As interesting background information, this editor does seem to have a history of violating [Biographies of living persons] and [Neutral point of view] specifically on Werner Erhard and topics related to Werner Erhard. This edit history shows that his NPOV on this living person, and related topics, spans a plethora of articles where he is the single biggest contributor: http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/Est_and_The_Forum_in_popular_culture 80% of the edits (211) http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/Outrageous_Betrayal 80% of the edits (273) http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/The_Hunger_Project 38% of the edits (220) http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/Werner_Erhard 26% of the edits (434) http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/EST_training 27% of the edits (244) http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/Werner_Erhard_and_Associates 38% of the edits (144) http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/Scientology_and_Werner_Erhard 38% of the edits (70)

It is concerning and against WP:BLP for an editor to continue to publish inflammatory and damaging statements while fully aware that there are numerous published reliable sources that refute those statements. I respectfully request this article be deleted based on WP:BLP violations. DaveApter (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am of course aware of Cirt's response to my comments on the Talk page of the article and my opinion is that in no way are they a satisfactory answer to my concerns. For the sake of clarifiacion, I would like to point ou that I did not propose this Deletion on the grounds of lack of notability - I proposed it because it is a clear abuse of Wikipedia to damage the reputation of a Living Person by propagating defamatory allegations which have since been acknowledged as being unsound and unjustified. DaveApter (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Note also the links above to six reliable sources in the media reporting on the unsoundness of the material in the 60 minutes program.DaveApter (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given what is being dicussed here, I hardly think my suggestions were spurious. Spacefarer (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Erhard is not part of Landmark Education (from a quick scan of the articles, they bought his est thingie), and this case did not involve Landmark Education. That would be reason enough not to merge this with that article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It passes WP:PERSISTENCE. It has been discussed in reliable secondary sources, a decade or so after the conclusion of the lawsuit. -- Cirt (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then merge with Werner Erhard or rename the Landmark Education litigation article to EST and Landmark Education litigation or some other appropriate title. The only non-contemporary sources discussing the lawsuit do so only in the context of articles about Erhard, so I disagree with the WP:PERSISTENCE claim. And more than half of the sources in the article appear to be violations of WP:SYN. THF (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As noted by Tagishsimon (talk · contribs), it would be an inappropriate merge, because of the attempts by the subsequent company to differentiate itself from the former and its founder - I would imagine this AFD's nominator would also object to those two being conflated together. -- Cirt (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)3[reply]
Fair enough. Right now, it's a WP:POVFORK from Werner Erhard, though. The article is really about the Sixty Minutes expose of Erhard (the material from Boing Boing in the lede has nothing to do with the subject of the article). The material is notable enough to be included in the Erhard article, and once it's in there, there's no reason for a standalone article about the particular lawsuit. THF (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Others at this AFD page, myself included, respectfully disagree with your assessment of the article. Background is necessary to understand the context of the lawsuit. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen anyone disagree with my assessment other than you. I see WP:ILIKEIT. There's clearly COATRACK: a 21st-century controversy at Boing Boing has nothing to do with a 1991 lawsuit. There's clearly POVFORK: the question remains why this isn't mentioned in Werner Erhard. If that article neutrally included the relevant information from this article (as I think it should), this article would be a complete duplicate. As it is, this article is doomed to be an orphan. THF (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information belongs in both places, this article and of course at Werner Erhard. If you feel so inclined, you may wish to attempt adding some sourced material to the Werner Erhard page, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No; Wikipedia:Notability (law) was rejected, so it falls back to WP:GNG. – iridescent 19:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is an encyclopedia, and it is a noteworthy piece of history. -- Cirt (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is somewhat Erhard's Streisand effect. WP:RS and WP:V, and then a host of other dispute mediation services are the directions this should take. The article appears to adhere to WP:BLP. If it lacks sourced refutations of the allegations, then these should be added to it. AfD is not - in my view - a place to settle content disputes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article does indeed contain sourced refutations of the allegations, see sect, Aftermath - and my point-by-point responses at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above claims by DaveApter (talk · contribs) are frivolous. This was a lawsuit brought by Erhard himself - which resulted in all allegations being dismissed. The only people who could have been "defamed" by this were the defendants. -- Cirt (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I added a short summary of this article to the article at Werner Erhard, see diff, we will see if that remains in that article or if it gets removed by WP:SPAs. In any event, this article is too large to be merged there. Best to just link back here for more details, using {{Main}} template. -- Cirt (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The content added to the subjects BLP is plenty. Minor legal issue not worthy of an article, bloated report about a barely notable issue related to Scientology. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily passes notability. Most of the objections can be handled by appropriate changes to the nominated article and related articles. The article is eminently readable, which, though not a justification for inclusion on Wikipedia, is still remarkably refreshing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is against WP:BLP to repeat unsubstantiated allegations, and that is what this article appears to be written to do. The legal case itself encompasses very little of this article, as there is not much to say about the case itself. Also as user THF points out above, more than half of the sources in this article are violations of WP:SYN. The allegations are unsubstantiated, have been refuted in reliable publications, and they were withdrawn from public record by the party responsible for presenting them in the first place. This was dealt with in the Werner Erhard article where editors determined that it was a violation to repeat unsubstantiated allegations in a biography about a living person WP:BLP. What is in the article is the one clear fact, which is that CBS removed the video and transcripts from their archives.--MLKLewis (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC) — MLKLewis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: MLKLewis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently blanked out his talk page with multiple issues relating to this topic - including copyright violation and plagiarism, see [6]. -- Cirt (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making this about other editors. I got tired of looking at Cirt's comments on my talk page. Here is my talk page for anyone who want to see it to look at. The serious issue to be addressed here is that this article is a WP:Coatrack that violates WP:BLP.--MLKLewis (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but other users disagree with those assessments about the article ([7] [8] [9]). -- Cirt (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. MLK: where is the discussion in which editors "determined" that it was a violation to repeat unsubstantiated allegations in a BLP article?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The facts are this: 1) Erhard filed to dismiss his own lawsuit. 2) One of his daughters, Celeste Erhard, said in another lawsuit (that was also dismissed) that she exaggerated some statements. 3) No one else from the 60 Minutes broadcast recanted their statements. -- Cirt (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On what basis do you claim that this is a "notable lawsuit in American defamation law"? Can you identify a single book about defamation law or defamation court case that has cited to this case? THF (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that you mention it, no, I can't ID a single law school textbook that features the case. The problem is that hornbooks feature almost exclusively appellate cases, and cases that are ended at the trial level hardly ever make it into such books. But that does not infer that it's a non-notable case. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A case that is never noted seems to be the very epitome of a non-notable case. THF (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Griswaldo (talk · contribs) is repeating himself. AFD is not for cleanup. Multiple users above agree the article is high quality, not pov, not "coatrack", see ([10] [11] [12]). -- Cirt (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only two of those address the COATRACK concern. How many people have really delved into the content of the entry? I'm inviting people who want it kept, like myself, to get into the content a bit more and to address some of the concerns brought out by the nominator and "delete" voters. What's wrong with that?Griswaldo (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the comment by ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) at the article's talk page, that "cleanup" type concerns should be addressed, after the AFD has run its course. -- Cirt (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether cleanup is done now or later, the scope of AfD is deleting articles: and clearly this article is not going to be deleted. It only remains to close this AfD and get on with the content discussion on the article talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this comment by Tagishsimon (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the facts you present about CBS are being hotly contested by the very editor I presume you are referring to. I point this fact out because the situation is not as simple as all that. That said I'm all for closing this as keep so we can get back to fixing the entry, as it is notable but not without problems. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user was previously blocked for socking on this very topic, see diff link. -- Cirt (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I was NOT blocked for socking. I had two accounts, editing in different areas, and have this one account now. It seems like your edits often follow in a similar manner as this comment, trying to connect things that are not connected and to turn them into something that is false. Spacefarer (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See block log for User:Spacefarer, the block edit summary reads: "Abusing multiple accounts: please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway". Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - despite the apparent issues with SPAs here, this article satisfies its notability requirements. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep has it been covered in multiple reliable sources? Yes, so fix the perceived POV/coatrack issues, not AfD it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is incredibly well sourced and does not violate NPOV. Edward321 (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nominator is jumping to several conclusions regarding the motives of the article's creator, and such speculation is not grounds for deletion. Do I myself think that the article may be too long, and that maybe it might not warrant a separate article? To a degree, yeah. Do I think the same thing about almost half the articles I see around here, many/most of which aren't nominated for deletion? Yeah. So, my opinion don't count for much. It meets WP:N, and that is pretty much the only point I can see to delete it. Maybe, in time, it could be merged into some other article, but this probably is not the place to discuss such things. John Carter (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- it's obvious to me that the purpose behind filing this AfD was not to get the article deleted: there was never any prospect of that, as the nom must have known. Instead it seems the intention was to get attention focused on the article, so that other editors would see the problems (ostensible or otherwise) the nom perceives and get involved with editing the article. Now, there's nothing wrong with more people paying attention to the article. But I think AfD has been misused to this effect. If the nom wants the article to get attention, he should use the relevant noticeboards. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge -- I know that most people are voting to keep this article. Taken alone it appears to be noteable, but as the nominator point out, it seems to be a huge WP:Coatrack article. The creator of the article, Cirt, has written so many articles on the topic, it does raise the question "Why else would they create this big of an article over something that was legal non-event?" Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This comment was canvassed for appearance to this AFD, by MLKLewis (talk · contribs), who already voted in a similar "delete" fashion, above. Please see diff link. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It seems like this should be merged into the Werner Erhard article. Alternatively, Griswaldo's idea about rewriting it from the ground up is also a good one. The subject passes notability, and at the same time, do we really need to know what Boing Boing says 20 years later, not even about the lawsuit, but about the transcript of the broadcast? I suspect this article was created to further a particular point of view, and anything about the broadcast or the lawsuit should be written carefully to make sure it's entirely fair - this is obviously critical when strong claims are presented about a living person. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user has received a warning from an admin for disruptive behavior on this subject matter, see diff link. -- Cirt (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of what relevance is that? The AfD is for making arguments about the article not for casting aspersions. I find this comment completely improper and ask that you please remove it.Griswaldo (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goes to a disturbing chronic history of  Confirmed socking and meatpuppeting that has gone on at this particular topic of Werner Erhard/Landmark Education for years, see checkuser-confirmed socking from numerous different accounts, at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. -- Cirt (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is Nwlaw63 socking here? Are they voting on the behalf of someone else? Unless you have proof of procedural wrongdoing these issues are not relevant to the AfD and you should be reminded to comment on content and not on editors.Griswaldo (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it might well be reasonable to raise such issues here. Remembering that this is not a debate, or a vote, it may in at least some cases be reasonable to raise points regarding a history of disruptive edits regarding similar content, up to and including sockpuppetry. I acknowledge some people are more active in AfD than I am, but indicating to the person who will ultimately close the AfD and make the final decision that there have been concerns regarding the behavior of editors in related content might be appropriate. I might myself wish for a fewer of them in this particular instance, but this discussion does seem to be attracting a lot of the "regular suspects editors" of this topic, and if there have been concerns of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, collusion, or whatever, in related matters before regarding some of them, indicating that to the closer seems to me a reasonable thing to do. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved response to User talk:John Carter, so as not to do what I'm criticizing others of doing.Griswaldo (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Griswaldo (talk · contribs), for the kind comments about my efforts to improve the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System&oldid=1141932574"