Joshua Feuerstein – G10 overturned. No impediment against bringing this to AfD. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Joshua Feuerstein (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Disclaimer: I created the incarnation of this article that was most recently deleted. The reason given in the deletion log was "attack page", but I don't think that the article, although admittedly a probable violation of WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:BLP, qualified as an attack page (though I don't remember exactly what it looked like prior to it being deleted recently). The content was well sourced and not negative enough to warrant being speedied under this criterion. Given that this speedy deletion seems, at least to me, to have been unwarranted under the criterion used by the deleting admin, I think the page should be restored. Everymorning (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Article was one-sided but capable of being salvaged. Stifle (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] I speedy deleted this one. I'm certain that Everymorning had the best of intentions in cleaning it up but this was not clean-upable IMO. This BLP was thrice created and deleted, most recently deleted under CSD A7 in October 2014, and subsequently salted by another admin User:Materialscientist. The article consisted of a one sentence lead describing him as an evangelist and internet personality. There were three brief paragraphs under "career": one about an incident about an anti-gay message on a cake, one about a YouTube video upload, and one about a video about why he didn't like Starbucks red cups without Christmas imagery which was uploaded to Facebook. All three were sourced by single primary references about those incidents, not about the individual. No content about his evangelism or sources about his internet fame, or anything else that substantiated why he should be in an encyclopedia. Indeed the page as a whole consisted only of three sourced episodes that just created a patchwork criticism of this fellow. The revision 1 minute before before called him "homophobic, gay-hating race-baiting", substantiated purportedly on the basis of these incidents. In my opinion, this was one-sided enough to be content that essentially only disparaged its subject, even if sourced, and met criteria for G10. -- Samir 23:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Overturn this was a seriously problematic article which needs work, if indeed we want an article on this person at all, but I don't think it was an attack page. Whether the sources were primary and the fact that the article was vandalised just before the deletion aren't relevant to the consideration of whether it was an attack page. Yes, it did describe the subject as "homophobic, gay-hating race-baiting" one minute before deletion, but one minute before that it didn't. The subject is evidently known for starting controversies and taking stances which most people (or most Wikipedians, anyway) would think are worthy of ridicule, but that doesn't in itself make the article an attack page. The two previous versions were far worse and were obvious A7s, it isn't worth considering them here. The article does need work for neutrality and BLP compliance, if the subject is actually notable at all, but I don't think it reaches G10 territory. Hut 8.5 14:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - as far as I can see, it's really not G10 at all - it reads negatively because the guy's only notable for doing disparagable things - the article isn't critical of him; it's pretty neutral, but a neutral reading of the facts makes readers form negative judgements about him. If it were unsourced, you could make a G10 claim, but given the sources, you really can't. Wily D 11:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Weakish Endorse. It's always difficult with articles on contemptible individuals to tell whether an article that chronicles their awfulness is an unfair attack page or just some cosmic karma. I prefer to err on the side of caution with these sorts of things. The initial version of the article simply listed a bunch of things that Feuerstein has done, and was clearly intended to paint him in a negative light. Subsequent edits made adjustments around the edges but didn't address that core issue, thus there was no "clean" version to revert to. CSD G10 doesn't have an out for cases where the subject of the article may have deserved it, or if the nature of any sources means that the only way to cover the subject makes them out to be a monster. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC).[reply] G10 has a specific out for this - that's why it's for either attack pages, or negative unsourced pages. It's recognising that a NPOV article can be negative if the person has done largely or entirely negative things - it's absolutely false to say the article paints him in a negative light - he painted himself in a negative light, the article just reflects that light. Wily D 18:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] I understand where you're coming from, but I still feel this was intended as an attack page and is thus eligible as CSD G10. It's different from, say, Adolf Hitler, which is reasonably neutral in tone, obviously leads the reader to make negative conclusions about the subject, but has been written to inform rather than simply intended as character assassination. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC).[reply] overturn and list at AfD where I suspect it will get deleted. But doesn't meet the G10 criteria from what I can see. Hobit (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Joshua Feuerstein – G10 overturned. No impediment against bringing this to AfD. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Disclaimer: I created the incarnation of this article that was most recently deleted. The reason given in the deletion log was "attack page", but I don't think that the article, although admittedly a probable violation of WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:BLP, qualified as an attack page (though I don't remember exactly what it looked like prior to it being deleted recently). The content was well sourced and not negative enough to warrant being speedied under this criterion. Given that this speedy deletion seems, at least to me, to have been unwarranted under the criterion used by the deleting admin, I think the page should be restored. Everymorning (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Article was one-sided but capable of being salvaged. Stifle (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I speedy deleted this one. I'm certain that Everymorning had the best of intentions in cleaning it up but this was not clean-upable IMO. This BLP was thrice created and deleted, most recently deleted under CSD A7 in October 2014, and subsequently salted by another admin User:Materialscientist. The article consisted of a one sentence lead describing him as an evangelist and internet personality. There were three brief paragraphs under "career": one about an incident about an anti-gay message on a cake, one about a YouTube video upload, and one about a video about why he didn't like Starbucks red cups without Christmas imagery which was uploaded to Facebook. All three were sourced by single primary references about those incidents, not about the individual. No content about his evangelism or sources about his internet fame, or anything else that substantiated why he should be in an encyclopedia. Indeed the page as a whole consisted only of three sourced episodes that just created a patchwork criticism of this fellow. The revision 1 minute before before called him "homophobic, gay-hating race-baiting", substantiated purportedly on the basis of these incidents. In my opinion, this was one-sided enough to be content that essentially only disparaged its subject, even if sourced, and met criteria for G10. -- Samir 23:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn this was a seriously problematic article which needs work, if indeed we want an article on this person at all, but I don't think it was an attack page. Whether the sources were primary and the fact that the article was vandalised just before the deletion aren't relevant to the consideration of whether it was an attack page. Yes, it did describe the subject as "homophobic, gay-hating race-baiting" one minute before deletion, but one minute before that it didn't. The subject is evidently known for starting controversies and taking stances which most people (or most Wikipedians, anyway) would think are worthy of ridicule, but that doesn't in itself make the article an attack page. The two previous versions were far worse and were obvious A7s, it isn't worth considering them here. The article does need work for neutrality and BLP compliance, if the subject is actually notable at all, but I don't think it reaches G10 territory. Hut 8.5 14:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - as far as I can see, it's really not G10 at all - it reads negatively because the guy's only notable for doing disparagable things - the article isn't critical of him; it's pretty neutral, but a neutral reading of the facts makes readers form negative judgements about him. If it were unsourced, you could make a G10 claim, but given the sources, you really can't. Wily D 11:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Endorse. It's always difficult with articles on contemptible individuals to tell whether an article that chronicles their awfulness is an unfair attack page or just some cosmic karma. I prefer to err on the side of caution with these sorts of things. The initial version of the article simply listed a bunch of things that Feuerstein has done, and was clearly intended to paint him in a negative light. Subsequent edits made adjustments around the edges but didn't address that core issue, thus there was no "clean" version to revert to. CSD G10 doesn't have an out for cases where the subject of the article may have deserved it, or if the nature of any sources means that the only way to cover the subject makes them out to be a monster. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- G10 has a specific out for this - that's why it's for either attack pages, or negative unsourced pages. It's recognising that a NPOV article can be negative if the person has done largely or entirely negative things - it's absolutely false to say the article paints him in a negative light - he painted himself in a negative light, the article just reflects that light. WilyD 18:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand where you're coming from, but I still feel this was intended as an attack page and is thus eligible as CSD G10. It's different from, say, Adolf Hitler, which is reasonably neutral in tone, obviously leads the reader to make negative conclusions about the subject, but has been written to inform rather than simply intended as character assassination. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
overturn and list at AfD where I suspect it will get deleted. But doesn't meet the G10 criteria from what I can see. Hobit (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.