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.
KeepWP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is the relevant policy. However, unfortunately it is explicitly aimed at biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures. This cannot apply to an individual who has given multiple interviews over a period of years for NATO and the New York Times, etc.It also seems that the article subject is not actually requesting deletion; at least, they are not averse to the article existing in some form or another. But that's a discussion for the article talk page rather than AfD.I commented at the recent WP:AN thread; pinging each other participants.@Creffett, Drmies, JzG, Mjroots, Primefac, SoWhy, and Sphilbrick:. Just realised I was the only non-admin there; sorry about that. ——Serial#20:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, and apologies for my lack of precision; I didn't mean to imply that you opened this in spite of them saying that—I was just (clumsily, perhaps) making a general suggestion as to their position now. ——Serial#15:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is clearly notable. There are no policy-based grounds for deletion, and the subject's wishes are no controlling, nor do they make a lot of sense under the circumstances: an en.wiki is highly unlikely to make his position less secure then it alreayd is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm seeing nothing which indicates any veracity to the claim made that having an article endangers his life. Any BLP issues may be brought up at talk and dealt with in the normal editing process. Per established precedent (Sally Boazman(details), Jim Hawkins(details), subjects of articles do not get to dictate to Wikipedia as to whether or not they have an article. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao - I have undone your change to an older version of the article. Your status as an admin does not give you any special authority in this respect, and I would have reverted to the current version no matter who did it. There was no consensus for the reversion, no discussion at all on the article's talk page, so your attempt to reduce the article to a previous, less fully referenced, version is not justified. If you think that it's necessary, take your arguments to the talk page, make a case for it there., and get a consensus. Otherwise, please do not do this again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, genuinely out of curiosity, are you saying that the version that Ser Amantio reverted to is of lesser quality? Or are you reverting simply because you feel a reversion of this sort in the middle of an AFD is inappropriate? (let's ignore for the moment the removal of the AFD notice, which I suspect was unintentional). Primefac (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC) (please do notping on reply)[reply]
Yes, I agree that the removal of the AfD notice was an oversight. I think that Ser Amantio (who, BTW, I believe is a good admin, and for whom I !voted at RfA, so I have no onus against them) really shouldn't be fooling around to that extent with an article which is at AfD after Arbcom passed on deleting it per the subject's request. (In fact, I was surprised that they brought it here at all after that.) But the real problem is as you say: the version they reverted to is not as good as the current version. By reverting, Ser Amantio removed a full paragraph of information, a photograph, and four sources. Improving an article during AfD is never a problem, it happens all the time, but reducing its quality is just not acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely not notable except for one event WP:1E. And all I can see are passing mention references. Not to mention, the doxxing-like tone that was in the article. His tribe journey is irrelevant.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the above editor is now edit warring to remove the same material that Ser Amantio deleted on the specious grounds that it is a BLP violation, which it is not. Beyond My Ken (talk)
WP:CRYBLP: and I'm rather surprised to see Drmies at the forefront of an unsupported edit war! SS, you're demonstrating an extremely superficial reading of BLP: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. To qualify for outright removal it must be contentious, unsourced or poorly sourced, and only then does your assertion that it doesn't matter whether its positive or negative kick in. The photograph, for instance, was uploaded by the subject themselves. You're also misunderstanding BLP1E. It's not the NATO article they're notable for, but their photojournalism in a region where Western-style photojournalism is frankly fucking dangerous. That was the topic of the interview, and their career is not "one event". ——Serial#10:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Serial Number 54129, we're not dealing with some whiny Western influencer who wants something added or removed, or with a politician's staff trying to whitewash an article. In addition, I was hardly "at the forefront" of it, as the history shows. The fact that their photojournalism is "frankly fucking dangerous" is, I believe precisely why they made the request. That I don't fully understand it, not having all the information, is not so relevant. Also, I don't understand "material released by the subject themself cannot be controversial". First of all, why not? Second, why can't material become controversial, because something else changes--a government, a chief of police, a family, a law? Drmies (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Drmies; I disagree that that applies to anything in the article. The photograph, for instance: if it was controverial, or dangerous, why is it still up? (And that's not the same as asking why it still has its license, as that cannot be revoked) They could still remove it from one of the biggest image depositories available, and haven't. Anyway, I'm not arguing about it, it's merely bizarre, verging on the grotesque, that a report of someone graduating MA from a (phenonomally) minor American college can possibly be construed as controversial. ——Serial#13:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since material released by the subject themself cannot be controversial, I have restored first-hand data: the image, which they uploaded to Flickr (as "self portrait, December 2008"); material which quotes his NATO interview; and an academic text from a reputable publisher who also quotes them verbatim. I have not restored the third party discursive material from The Sentinel, admittedly a pretty local paper, although you'd have a hard time arguing that France24 is unrelaible. ——Serial#11:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per this edit, the user is claiming that merely having an article about himself makes him a target, as insurgents (apparently) consider anyone who has a Wikipedia article to be "a big deal." I am not weighing in on the validity of that argument, merely posting it here for clarification (since the subject seems reluctant to elaborate). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are also articles about this person on Arabic Wikipedia and Persian Wikipedia as well. I realize that they are beyond the scope of this discussion, but I'm curious to know whether deletions requests for them have been made as well. If it has been verified (by WP:OTRS) that the subject of the article is requesting that thethis article be deleted because he is concerned about his safety or about the safety of his family, then I think that is something that should be given serious consideration.I don't think that we as a community can tell someone not to worry about something or not to be afraid if they really feel that way. However, I also don't think that we as a community should start accepting watered-down versions of articles and removing otherwise policy and guideline compliant content just because the subjects of articles prefer one version over another. If one particular version of an article might place the subject at risk because anyone who has a Wikipedia article written about them might be seen as a "big deal" (thus making them or their family a target), then any version of the article would seem to pose the same risk, wouldn't it? Displaying the version the subject prefers seems quite contrary to WP:OWN as well as some other generally accepted things about Wikipedia. The "old" version will still be visible unless it's WP:SUPPRESSed from the page's history and it could be re-added or similar new content could be added in good faith in the future by those trying to improve the article. Will the same thing be allowed again if the subject disagrees with future changes made to the article? Will the page be WP:GOLD protected in perpetuity to stop anyone outside of an administrator from editing it? If either of these things is to be the case, then it what's the point of having an article to begin with?I'm not trying to downplay the concerns of the subject, but I don't think there's lots of room here for the community to try and maneuver. If the community wants to acknowledge the subject's concerns by deleting the article, then that's what it should do. All content about the subject should be deleted (including any images, and articles on other language Wikipedias if at all possible) because everything together would seem to still be placing the subject at risk. The subject's name should also probably be WP:SALTed so that the page cannot be recreated without at least some kind of discussion as to whether the situation has changed.Perhaps some of the things I've posted seem a bit extreme, but I think that if the community really wants to err on the side of caution here, then there should be no middle ground:and the article should be deleted. E either the article needs to be deleted or it needs to adhere to relevant policies and guidelines as determined by consensus, even if that's not the version of the article that the subject prefers. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post copyedited and clarified a bit by Marchjuly. Additions are underlined, while removals are stricken through. — 21:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)][reply]
Keep. I see consensus that the subject meets notability criteria so the discussion is whether or not a subject can have content about them removed. Relevant policy says that a sufficiently notable individual may not. Claims of personal safety are not to be taken lightly but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If it's in an article it should be referenced, which means it already exists. Removal from Wikipedia does not remove the source. Therefore the safety concerns aren't really relevent. Ifnord (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2020 (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.