This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2020 December 26. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was keep. The consensus of this discussion is explicitly clear. The BLP arguments have not been supported by the discussion. I particularly do not accept that we should use articles like this to move the window on BLP and GNG. This person may well be a scumbag (to quote someome in the discussion) but his article should not be a battleground to change policy. Instead that is what policy talk pages should be for.
One final point should be the title of this article. I don't feel that politician is the correct tag and I would suggest further discussion on the article talk should agree a new location. Spartaz Humbug! 21:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
He's not a notable person. He's notorius, and that's different. The article's a hatchet job, and that can't be fixed -- it's inherently a hatchet job because of the sources of his supposed notability. That's a BLP violation. So let's see...
Sure he meets the
WP:GNG. So let me point out a couple-few things about that.
WP:BLP says:
Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist...the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment... Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article [emphasis added].... Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care...
And I mean a lot of the refs are of the nature of "OMG! Look at this! Here's this person who's a self-confessed _________, and he's running for office! Well what is the world coming to!". We are not supposed to be doing this.
So let's see.., article ledes are supposed to lay out why the person is notable... the lede of this article is too cutesy by half: it starts with
Nathan Daniel Larson (born September 19, 1980) is an American perennial candidate for public office in the U.S. state of Virginia.
So this is presented first, as his most important factor of notability. But he's not a perennial candidate to the degree sufficient for an article. He ran for Congress once, and got 1.46% of the vote. He ran for the lower house of the state legislature, which is not a very notable position, and got 1.68. And that's it. (He started another run for Congress, but withdrew.) That's... there are many thousands of people with this level of electoral accomplishment, and they don't have articles and shouldn't. Nor does two (or three if you squint) runs for office make one a "perennial candidate", which term is a pejorative and we shouldn't use it since it's not true.
So why does this person have an article? Well let's see what's really going on here:
He served 14 months in prison for the felony of threatening the President of the United States. He has advocated greatly curtailing women's rights and decriminalizing child sexual abuse and incest, and is a white supremacist. In 2020, Larson was [redacted].
Well first of all this applies to thousands upon thousands of people, except for the bit about
threatening the President of the United States, but even that is an American sport: prosecutions for that average about 40 a year over the last 20 years (it says
here). Larson was convicted, and I don't know how common that is, but prosecutors don't usually bring charges unless they've got a good chance of winning.
This 2019 article notes two people who were convicted in the same week of threatening the President. Those people don't have articles. Should they, do you think?
So on what basis do have a lede here? We shouldn't really open with saying he's a perennial candidate, because he's really not, and even if he is he's only so at the level of thousands of people who don't have articles. We shouldn't really open with "is a person who was convicted for threatening the President of the United States", because that's very common and people don't get articles for that. We shouldn't really open with "A person who has advocated greatly curtailing women's rights and decriminalizing child sexual abuse and incest, and is a white supremacist", because that's true of my Grand-Uncle Dwight and millions of other people. We absolutely cannot open with the final sentence which is about an arrest, and BLP specifically forbids mentions of crimes until actual conviction (I removed that sentence since BLP compels editors to remove such material on sight). And we can't really open with "is just a really awful person" because that's not how we roll.
So let's be honest here: 1) Nathan Larson is a ______ ______, and he's also a ______ and a ______. 2) And he's also an extreme right-wing person, and a white supremacist, and all that. 3) And so we don't like him, at all. And that's why he has an article, even though he's just not worth an article. But "Here's a guy we reallllllly don't like" is not a basis for an article, and Wikipedia policy says so.
[EDIT: the above section bit is utterly false, unkind, insulting, and other bad stuff. I was called out on it, probably not harshly enough, and I've apologized to the article creator
User:Yngvadottir if that helps and commended the skill and daring of her work. I'm embarrassed, but the rest of my argument still stands.
Herostratus (
talk) 01:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I get that there's going to be a whole lot of "votes" to the effect of "boop beep, meets GNG, keep". I'm calling upon the closer to note that this is not a vote, and that policy considerations are real important. (There was a previous deletion nomination for this article (
here), but it was closed after two days, apparently purely on preliminary headcount at the time, or the closer just liked the article, or something. I wouldn't count that as a real AfD.)
This is just a really bad article for us to publish. Delete. (Full disclosure: FWIW I hate this guy. That has nothing to do with what we're about here.) Herostratus ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
(References for some of the above material are required per BLP, and here they are, lifted from the article: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
References
Extended content
|
---|
There's a lot to chew on here, and I'm requesting the closer to relist as long as comments are coming in. We want to get this right, there's no hurry. I'm trying to move the Overton window on both GNG and BLP maybe just a little bit here, maybe by only one or two editors (but you never know!), so let's keep going. So... a point that I haven't seen addressed are are around the User:Herostratus/Trump orb situation. That article was deleted in 2017 (here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump orb (2nd nomination)) despite not only meeting the GNG but far far far exceeding it. The headcount was 28-8 to delete, so this is fine (I think it's OK because I'm not a slave to the GNG guideline). My questions are
1) Since the article clearly and incontrovertibly met GNG, should that AfD been closed as Keep (AfD is not a vote)? Were 28 editors wrongheaded?
I'd like to see some cogent answers to my questions, but they're probably not forthcoming, because there aren't any I don't think. Prove me wrong. Herostratus ( talk) 02:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
References
|
The above section should not have been collapsed, although there's nothing I can do about it is there. Of the "wall of text" objected to, one paragraph was my laying out new data, including pointing to new sources; the rest was fruitful, if involved, discussions with other editors.
The only proper reason for hiding text on pages like this is for off-subject material, and that's all I've ever seen it used for, pretty much. The material hidden is directly on subject, and it's against practice to be like "This on-topic material doesn't interest me, therefore nobody else should read it either".
Discussions on this article have resulted in one discussion being prevented, another attempt to prevent discussion (reversed), and now this hiding. That's kind of suspicious, and a disinterested person would note that it's behavior typical of people who don't have winning arguments. Attempts by editors with the weaker argument to violate practice and procedure to try to cut short discussion is not a good look.
That being said, it's clear that the Keep camp has the numbers and no turnaround is coming, and weak argument or no, no closer is going to go against numbers like that or should. I'll withdraw the nomination if I could (but I can't, because there're two other Delete !votes and so withdrawal's not permitted, and I can't close it normally because I'm involved. So some uninvolved person has to do it.) Herostratus ( talk) 01:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2020 December 26. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was keep. The consensus of this discussion is explicitly clear. The BLP arguments have not been supported by the discussion. I particularly do not accept that we should use articles like this to move the window on BLP and GNG. This person may well be a scumbag (to quote someome in the discussion) but his article should not be a battleground to change policy. Instead that is what policy talk pages should be for.
One final point should be the title of this article. I don't feel that politician is the correct tag and I would suggest further discussion on the article talk should agree a new location. Spartaz Humbug! 21:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
He's not a notable person. He's notorius, and that's different. The article's a hatchet job, and that can't be fixed -- it's inherently a hatchet job because of the sources of his supposed notability. That's a BLP violation. So let's see...
Sure he meets the
WP:GNG. So let me point out a couple-few things about that.
WP:BLP says:
Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist...the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment... Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article [emphasis added].... Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care...
And I mean a lot of the refs are of the nature of "OMG! Look at this! Here's this person who's a self-confessed _________, and he's running for office! Well what is the world coming to!". We are not supposed to be doing this.
So let's see.., article ledes are supposed to lay out why the person is notable... the lede of this article is too cutesy by half: it starts with
Nathan Daniel Larson (born September 19, 1980) is an American perennial candidate for public office in the U.S. state of Virginia.
So this is presented first, as his most important factor of notability. But he's not a perennial candidate to the degree sufficient for an article. He ran for Congress once, and got 1.46% of the vote. He ran for the lower house of the state legislature, which is not a very notable position, and got 1.68. And that's it. (He started another run for Congress, but withdrew.) That's... there are many thousands of people with this level of electoral accomplishment, and they don't have articles and shouldn't. Nor does two (or three if you squint) runs for office make one a "perennial candidate", which term is a pejorative and we shouldn't use it since it's not true.
So why does this person have an article? Well let's see what's really going on here:
He served 14 months in prison for the felony of threatening the President of the United States. He has advocated greatly curtailing women's rights and decriminalizing child sexual abuse and incest, and is a white supremacist. In 2020, Larson was [redacted].
Well first of all this applies to thousands upon thousands of people, except for the bit about
threatening the President of the United States, but even that is an American sport: prosecutions for that average about 40 a year over the last 20 years (it says
here). Larson was convicted, and I don't know how common that is, but prosecutors don't usually bring charges unless they've got a good chance of winning.
This 2019 article notes two people who were convicted in the same week of threatening the President. Those people don't have articles. Should they, do you think?
So on what basis do have a lede here? We shouldn't really open with saying he's a perennial candidate, because he's really not, and even if he is he's only so at the level of thousands of people who don't have articles. We shouldn't really open with "is a person who was convicted for threatening the President of the United States", because that's very common and people don't get articles for that. We shouldn't really open with "A person who has advocated greatly curtailing women's rights and decriminalizing child sexual abuse and incest, and is a white supremacist", because that's true of my Grand-Uncle Dwight and millions of other people. We absolutely cannot open with the final sentence which is about an arrest, and BLP specifically forbids mentions of crimes until actual conviction (I removed that sentence since BLP compels editors to remove such material on sight). And we can't really open with "is just a really awful person" because that's not how we roll.
So let's be honest here: 1) Nathan Larson is a ______ ______, and he's also a ______ and a ______. 2) And he's also an extreme right-wing person, and a white supremacist, and all that. 3) And so we don't like him, at all. And that's why he has an article, even though he's just not worth an article. But "Here's a guy we reallllllly don't like" is not a basis for an article, and Wikipedia policy says so.
[EDIT: the above section bit is utterly false, unkind, insulting, and other bad stuff. I was called out on it, probably not harshly enough, and I've apologized to the article creator
User:Yngvadottir if that helps and commended the skill and daring of her work. I'm embarrassed, but the rest of my argument still stands.
Herostratus (
talk) 01:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I get that there's going to be a whole lot of "votes" to the effect of "boop beep, meets GNG, keep". I'm calling upon the closer to note that this is not a vote, and that policy considerations are real important. (There was a previous deletion nomination for this article (
here), but it was closed after two days, apparently purely on preliminary headcount at the time, or the closer just liked the article, or something. I wouldn't count that as a real AfD.)
This is just a really bad article for us to publish. Delete. (Full disclosure: FWIW I hate this guy. That has nothing to do with what we're about here.) Herostratus ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
(References for some of the above material are required per BLP, and here they are, lifted from the article: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
References
Extended content
|
---|
There's a lot to chew on here, and I'm requesting the closer to relist as long as comments are coming in. We want to get this right, there's no hurry. I'm trying to move the Overton window on both GNG and BLP maybe just a little bit here, maybe by only one or two editors (but you never know!), so let's keep going. So... a point that I haven't seen addressed are are around the User:Herostratus/Trump orb situation. That article was deleted in 2017 (here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump orb (2nd nomination)) despite not only meeting the GNG but far far far exceeding it. The headcount was 28-8 to delete, so this is fine (I think it's OK because I'm not a slave to the GNG guideline). My questions are
1) Since the article clearly and incontrovertibly met GNG, should that AfD been closed as Keep (AfD is not a vote)? Were 28 editors wrongheaded?
I'd like to see some cogent answers to my questions, but they're probably not forthcoming, because there aren't any I don't think. Prove me wrong. Herostratus ( talk) 02:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
References
|
The above section should not have been collapsed, although there's nothing I can do about it is there. Of the "wall of text" objected to, one paragraph was my laying out new data, including pointing to new sources; the rest was fruitful, if involved, discussions with other editors.
The only proper reason for hiding text on pages like this is for off-subject material, and that's all I've ever seen it used for, pretty much. The material hidden is directly on subject, and it's against practice to be like "This on-topic material doesn't interest me, therefore nobody else should read it either".
Discussions on this article have resulted in one discussion being prevented, another attempt to prevent discussion (reversed), and now this hiding. That's kind of suspicious, and a disinterested person would note that it's behavior typical of people who don't have winning arguments. Attempts by editors with the weaker argument to violate practice and procedure to try to cut short discussion is not a good look.
That being said, it's clear that the Keep camp has the numbers and no turnaround is coming, and weak argument or no, no closer is going to go against numbers like that or should. I'll withdraw the nomination if I could (but I can't, because there're two other Delete !votes and so withdrawal's not permitted, and I can't close it normally because I'm involved. So some uninvolved person has to do it.) Herostratus ( talk) 01:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)