- 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 no consensus. Seems like there are two points here, whether the topic is notable and whether this warrants a BLPREQUESTDELETE deletion. On the first question, it seems like this has a consensus more in favour of the topic meeting notability guidelines although there is a little wriggle room thanks to bradv's statement - ordinarily this would be considered a keep consensus however. I note also the little discussed proposal by Teratix to write pages on the books published by the subject rather than the subject himself, but it hasn't received enough coverage to be deemed the consensus.
On the second question, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - both it and WP:BIODELETE that it relies upon are in fact policy - allows (not mandates) an AFD to be closed as delete if it a) is a biography of a living person, b) the subject requests deletion c) the subject is relatively unknown/not public and d) there is no rough consensus. Note that it doesn't say "subject must be non-notable" nor "updating the article means". In terms of the discussion a) is pretty much uncontested, b) has been contested by Dusti both on the grounds of account identity and the exact wording of the request but it doesn't seem like this consideration has convinced many people - I have some difficulty in finding precedents on whether we'd consider the situation here as sufficient evidence of a BLPREQUESTDELETE situation, c) hasn't received much consideration, but the fact that all notability claims here appear to be through his books rather than about any specific coverage of him speaks to this point being satisfied and d) seems to fit, as we have some people citing notability in favour of keeping (with a little doubt however) and others citing BLP (the privacy aspects) in favour of deletion.
Ultimately, I'll deem this a no-prejudice "no consensus". In my assessment, the concerns cited here are not so overwhelmingly in favour of deletion that they'd warrant a BLPREQUESTDELETE closure in light of the counterarguments presented. I emphasize that this is a no-prejudice close; a different. more explicitly deletion-requesting statement by the article subject through say WP:OTRS would probably warrant a re-do of this discussion and Teratix's proposal to "out-source" the coverage here to articles about the books would also deserve serious consideration as it'd address both Wikipedia's scope to catalogue encyclopedic topics and BLP issues; it just didn't receive enough discussion here to be deemed the consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Ryan Maness
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ryan Maness ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relatively unknown person who has requested deletion of his own article. PROD was removed after an incorrect assessment of WP:PROF#3, because these aren’t the type of professional societies that lead to notability, but even if they were it wouldn’t matter: WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE makes it quite clear we can delete this upon request of the subject, and to be perfectly blunt, to not delete an article about a private person who is unknown to the wider world but passes one of our arbitrary guidelines when they request it would be a jerk move on our part. Deleting is the right thing to do here from an ethical standpoint. Notability doesn’t particularly mater in this case. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - Passes notability guidelines, easily courtesy WP:NAUTHOR 4(c) and WP:NPROF C1. One of his books:- Cyber War Versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System has been near-unanimously documented to be a pioneer book, in the area of cyberspace, that (for the first time) introduced quantitative analysis in the field. See the section, that I wrote over Ryan_Maness#Cyber_War_Versus_Cyber_Realities:_Cyber_Conflict_in_the_International_System. At any case, I note multiple reviews of his works over:-
- Domingo, Francis C. (2015-10-02). "Cyber War Versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System by Brandon Valeriano and Ryan C. Maness". Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 12 (4): 399–401. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2015.1101039. ISSN 1933-1681.
- Joe Burton. Review of Valeriano, Brandon; Maness, Ryan C., Cyber War versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System. H-Diplo, H-Net Reviews. April, 2016.
- Nocetti, Julien (2016). "Disruptive power: the crisis of the state in the digital age. By Taylor Owen: The real cyber war: the political economy of internet freedom. By Shawn M. Powers and Michael Jablonski: Cyber war versus cyber realities: cyber conflict in the international system. By Brandon Valeriano and Ryan C. Maness". International Affairs. 92 (2): 463–465. doi: 10.1111/1468-2346.12565. ISSN 1468-2346.
- Gudgel, John E. (2016-05-03). "Cyber War versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System". Small Wars & Insurgencies. 27 (3): 550–552. doi: 10.1080/09592318.2016.1151659. ISSN 0959-2318.
- O’Connor, Courteney J (2017-05-01). "Book Review: Brandon Valeriano and Ryan C Maness, Cyber War versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System". Political Studies Review. 15 (2): 288–289. doi: 10.1177/1478929917689961. ISSN 1478-9299.
- Rivera, David W. (December 2018). "Russia's Coercive Diplomacy: Energy, Cyber, and Maritime Policy as New Sources of Power. By Ryan C. Maness and Brandon Valeriano. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. 250p. $109.99 cloth". Perspectives on Politics. 16 (4): 1234–1236. doi: 10.1017/S1537592718002335. ISSN 1537-5927.
- "Book Review: 'Cyber Strategy: The Evolving Character of Power and Coercion'". International Policy Digest. 2018-10-19. Retrieved 2019-05-30.
- Harknett, Richard (October 2018).
"Review of Valeriano, Brandon; Jensen, Benjamin M.; Maness, Ryan C., Cyber Strategy: The Evolving Character of Power and Coercion". H-Diplo, H-Review. Retrieved 2019-05-30.
{{ cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=( help) - Oslo (PRIO), Peace Pesearch Institute. "Maness, Ryan D & Brandon Valeriano (2015) Russia's Coercive Diplomacy: Energy, Cyber, and Maritime Policy as New Sources of Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, xiii+250 pp., index. - PRIO". www.prio.org. Retrieved 2019-05-30.
∯WBG converse 03:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- The argument for deletion isn't from notability, which frankly doesn't matter one iota in this case. The subject of the BLP has requested it be deleted. He is not a prominent figure. He is a person who simply wants his privacy to be respected. Our policy allows us to consider that as a valid reason for deletion. He's not trying to hide from anything. He doesn't like the fact that his privacy is being invaded and that the first thing that comes up when you Google him is basically guaranteed to always be out of date. Policy allows us to consider these valid reasons for deletion, I certainly would do the same if someone wrote an article about me.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 04:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- notability, which frankly doesn't matter one iota in this case -- that's so wrong, from every aspect. Per BLPREQUESTDELETE, we evaluate the notability of the subject and iff he's a borderline case, we do opt for obliging the subject's request of deletion. You cannot divorce notability from any deletion policy, in entirety.
- At any case, if this ends up being kept, I will re-write it. Guaranteed to be always out of date? That's weird, do you feel that the encyclopedic details of his CV does change too rapidly?
- Overall, I am not inclined to consider the line of argument, forwarded by you in light of the fact that apart from the above bunch of sources, there are other reviews of his works too.
∯WBG
converse 04:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see the word notable anywhere in
WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, and the BLP policy has a presumption of privacy. We don't have to delete articles, if Donald Trump or Theresa May requested their article deleted we certainly wouldn't, but if a notable
private person who probably 99.99% of editors hadn't heard of until the subject decided to request deletion asks us to delete it on the grounds that it's an invasion of privacy and will be out of date, well, that is something we should consider just from an ethical perspective, and the policy is written to allow us to consider it.On always out of date: you may be able to update it now, but I don't think it will be updated for every career move he makes, and he's young enough that he will make several and could hold multiple positions at the same time. The likelihood of the first page that appears about you on Google containing factual errors is a valid concern.On the whole, requests from private persons to delete their articles when they aren't overwhelmingly notable (he isn't) and when they aren't trying to whitewash something (he isn't) should be granted. This guy made the mistake of fighting with a high-profile admin over it, and quite frankly was a jerk about it, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a human being and he retains certain moral rights that our movement as a whole has typically been fairly supportive of. No real harm comes from deleting this and the good of respecting someone's privacy when they have requested it occurs. That's a positive thing, and policy allows it.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 04:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I have a couple of issues with this:
- 1. He's not asking us to delete this due to the fact that he's concerned about his privacy. He stated I politely ask that you delete it or update it thoroughly.
- 1a. That tells me that he isn't as concerned about his privacy as he is about having updated, factual information on his Article. I believe this is where WP:SOFIXIT comes in to play. I've left him a note on his talk page about the proper process on getting things updated. Granted, he's currently blocked, but there's still OTRS and his talk page avenue. We just need to ensure that we remain in line with policy.
- 2. We don't know that this is actually him. There's no OTRS ticket that I'm aware of, and we're running to delete this article based on a random profile that's upset.
- 3. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. We're running based on the fact that we're assuming he wants it simply deleted. He's stated multiple times that he wants it to be updated or deleted.
- 1. He's not asking us to delete this due to the fact that he's concerned about his privacy. He stated I politely ask that you delete it or update it thoroughly.
- Either way, it seems like someone isn't going to be happy with the way this ends. Dusti *Let's talk!* 04:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- BLPREQUESTDELETE states:- relatively unknown, non-public figures. I have no idea, as to how are we going to decide these particular traits of a random XYZ, w/o seeing the levels of coverage of him/his works across sources. His works have been reviewed by multiple (~10) journals in quite favorable terms and in fields related with social science, reviews across major publications are highly reliable indicator of a person's repute (than citations et al).
99.99% of editors hadn't heard of
is a grossly poor argument. I, knew about this subject, having read one of his books and FWIW, can make a safe bet, that 99.99% of the editorial populace don't have a clue about 99% of our BLPs.- I have idea about how the academia operates and I refuse to buy your claim about career moves and all that.
- This guy was pissed off about a poor article and stated:-
I politely ask that you delete it or update it thoroughly
. And, you choose to remedy that by not taking the latter option. That's an exceedingly poor way of managing stuff and we agree to disagree. ∯WBG converse 04:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)- This will be my last reply, but I do want to reply since this should not be about book reviews but should be about respecting a private person. He made it abundently clear he prefered deletion, and asked us to see the deletion through. He doesn't have that much news coverage and academic book reviews don't make one a public figure. Neither do a few news reports a few years ago.Re: the no OTRS ticket argument: I think we should use some basic common sense that someone isn't going to imply legal threats and try to get Wikipedia further regulated over a biography that isn't theirs. Yes, it isn't definitive proof, but the person who has requested this deletion is acting consistent with being the subject of the article. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I have a couple of issues with this:
- I don't see the word notable anywhere in
WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, and the BLP policy has a presumption of privacy. We don't have to delete articles, if Donald Trump or Theresa May requested their article deleted we certainly wouldn't, but if a notable
private person who probably 99.99% of editors hadn't heard of until the subject decided to request deletion asks us to delete it on the grounds that it's an invasion of privacy and will be out of date, well, that is something we should consider just from an ethical perspective, and the policy is written to allow us to consider it.On always out of date: you may be able to update it now, but I don't think it will be updated for every career move he makes, and he's young enough that he will make several and could hold multiple positions at the same time. The likelihood of the first page that appears about you on Google containing factual errors is a valid concern.On the whole, requests from private persons to delete their articles when they aren't overwhelmingly notable (he isn't) and when they aren't trying to whitewash something (he isn't) should be granted. This guy made the mistake of fighting with a high-profile admin over it, and quite frankly was a jerk about it, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a human being and he retains certain moral rights that our movement as a whole has typically been fairly supportive of. No real harm comes from deleting this and the good of respecting someone's privacy when they have requested it occurs. That's a positive thing, and policy allows it.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 04:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- The argument for deletion isn't from notability, which frankly doesn't matter one iota in this case. The subject of the BLP has requested it be deleted. He is not a prominent figure. He is a person who simply wants his privacy to be respected. Our policy allows us to consider that as a valid reason for deletion. He's not trying to hide from anything. He doesn't like the fact that his privacy is being invaded and that the first thing that comes up when you Google him is basically guaranteed to always be out of date. Policy allows us to consider these valid reasons for deletion, I certainly would do the same if someone wrote an article about me.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 04:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Neutral leaning towards keepStriking the neutral vote as I'm moving to keep and will be commenting that down at the bottom.I haven't really had time to look over anything, and as I said on Bbb23's talk page I'm not familiar with the whole Fellow thing, so I didn't know there was a difference between someone who's a fellow and a visiting fellow. He does get 45,000 hits on Google and a pretty good number of citations on Google Scholar. The user is rather upset on their talk page and in all honesty - we haven't verified their identity. For all we know, it could be Betty White posing as Ryan Maness. I know, that's absurd, but this could be anyone posing as him. Dusti *Let's talk!* 04:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- More reviews --
- Wirtz, James J. (2018-04-03). "Cyber War or Monkey Business?". International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence. 31 (2): 415–419. doi: 10.1080/08850607.2018.1418586. ISSN 0885-0607.
- Stevens, Tim (2013-04-01). "Cyberspace and National Security: Threats, Opportunities, and Power in a Virtual World". Contemporary Security Policy. 34 (1): 254–256. doi: 10.1080/13523260.2013.776801. ISSN 1352-3260.
∯WBG converse 04:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete – does not meet
NPROF. The usual minimum level of citations argued at AfD are 3 journal articles each with over 100 citations –
Maness has 1. None of the NPROF criteria are met – he is not a full professor, has not received any major award or honour, and has not had a substantial impact in his academic capacity (as demonstrated by the lack of citations). –
bradv
🍁 05:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- We have consistently noted the amount of book reviews to be an indicator of C1 in fields of social science. WP:NACADEMIC states:-
Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones. Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences. Also, in sciences, most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries).
Claiming that someone in fields crosscutting with social science will have 3 journal articles each with over 100 citations is .... - Also,
WP:NAUTHOR 4(C) states:-
Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals are presumed notable if the person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention
. ∯WBG converse 05:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)- So you would consider the above reviews "significant critical attention"? I'm not sure exactly where that bar is, but I'm pretty sure it's higher than that. Furthermore, how do you propose we write this article? The only source that offers any biographical information is self-published (and a dead link), and there's nothing to be found other than mentions in passing. So we really can't write much more than "he co-wrote two books." –
bradv
🍁 05:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
-
Bradv, see my re-write.
∯WBG
converse 06:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- The subject's own CV is not a reliable source. – bradv 🍁 06:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
-
Bradv, see my re-write.
∯WBG
converse 06:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- So you would consider the above reviews "significant critical attention"? I'm not sure exactly where that bar is, but I'm pretty sure it's higher than that. Furthermore, how do you propose we write this article? The only source that offers any biographical information is self-published (and a dead link), and there's nothing to be found other than mentions in passing. So we really can't write much more than "he co-wrote two books." –
bradv
🍁 05:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- We have consistently noted the amount of book reviews to be an indicator of C1 in fields of social science. WP:NACADEMIC states:-
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG converse 05:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: as per the subject's request. Could be marginally notable an an author, but not overwhelmingly so to ignore the wishes of the subject of the article. Some people pay good money to have a BLP article, while some don't want to be in Wikipedia. The second case is certainly healthier and we should honour reasonable requests.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 06:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- K.e.coffman, that's not even remotely policy based and we haven't even confirmed if this is even the subject of the article. Dusti *Let's talk!* 06:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- The guy has written books published not too long ago, if confirmation is needed that he really is the one complaining it really shouldn't be too difficult to contact him or his agent... 86.159.6.4 ( talk) 18:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- The bottom line is that Wikipedia would not be significantly improved by retaining this article. --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 07:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- K.e.coffman, Wikipedia isn't significantly improved by retaining any specific article. We have policies for a reason. Let's just chuck them to the bin because one person is upset that there's an out of date article about them, rather than fixing it and following the procedures we already have. Dusti *Let's talk!* 07:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Is it possible the article's subject could be switched to Maness's book Cyber War Versus Cyber Realities? I think that would be a good compromise since that seems to be his most notable work and it passes the first criterion of
WP:NBOOK. –
Tera
tix
₵ 08:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Teratix, the third one has ample reviews. I am yet to add all. ∯WBG converse 08:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I am not him (really) but putting myself in this guy's shoes for a moment, he's published books, they've been reviewed, he might need to accept he is now, to some extent, a public figure. However, we are not journalists here, we are an encyclopedia. It would be nice if what was written about him here was kept strictly relevant to the thing he is notable for. Also, quite stressful I think to now always have to keep an eye on what is written about you. Looking at the article I'd suggest the first thing that could have been done was to 'future proof' it by removing the present tense from some of it, more explicitly just looking at 'who he was' at the time he wrote the books? Then see where we go from there? 86.159.6.4 ( talk) 18:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Since he's blocked & currently we have no further opportunity to clarify his wishes I'm going with the article being updated was his second choice, he'd prefer deletion because (as I take it) he's not offered guarantees of future accurate updates & his ongoing involvement here would be time consuming for him. I think an individual in his position has every right to be angry & shouldn't need to familiarise themselves with complex etiquette & procedures here before expressing his quite reasonable view. 86.159.6.4 ( talk) 22:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR, co-author of well known books (ie. Cyber War Versus Cyber Realities in about 230 libraries, Russia's Coercive Diplomacy in about 130 libraries, Cyber Strategy in about 195 libraries.), that have plenty of reviews (many in the article). Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think the problem is whether Maness passes WP:NAUTHOR. The question is whether to honour his request for deletion per BLPREQUESTDELETE, as he is not a public figure. – Tera tix ₵ 13:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Coolabahapple, yeah, this is about his request for deletion and whether or not to honour it, not about the notability. Basically the argument for deletion can be summed up in this comment from AGK on an unrelated case. We strongly respect privacy as a movement, and historically we've been fairly liberal with granting requests for deletion, though it isn't guaranteed. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The presumed (but not proven) subject of the article asked that the article either be deleted or updated thoroughly. Since then, the article has been updated thoroughly, so his request has been fulfilled. There is nothing in the article that violates his privacy in the slightest. The article should be kept, and the subject can make edit requests from his talk page if he so chooses. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. The potential harm to the subject outweighs the benefit of having a listing of book reviews in one place. - kyykaarme ( talk) 20:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. The notability through WP:AUTHOR is clear enough that I don't think we should let the subject's wishes override. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I don't really see any valid policy based arguments for deletion. Per the keep !votes or arguments, I'm seeing strong policy based reasons. If the subject didn't want himself to be in the public eye or establish notoriety, he shouldn't have written numerous books. Unfortunately for him, he's now established himself in the public eye and appropriately so, an article about him has risen on Wikipedia. While there may have been some BLP violations in the article, we have processes to ensure that information is updated and that seemed to be his main concern. Those issues have been fixed, the article is now updated, and as such - it falls in line with WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Those are policy based arguments. Dusti *Let's talk!* 22:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, yes Dusti, "we have processes to ensure that information is updated" but as far as we can see he has been told that he has no right to expect that any such processes are in future carried through, only that if some unpaid volunteer in future happens to feel like doing it then we might do it as a favour to him as long as there are sources independent from him available for any updated information?
86.159.6.4 (
talk) 23:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC) So if your view is policy based I might be asking if some policies might be due for review given all the circumstances here in 2019?
86.159.6.4 (
talk) 00:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- And there are forums for that, however, this discussion is about if the article meets our criteria for inclusion.
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 00:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- The policy-based argument for deletion is that the subject, a living person, is relatively unknown (even though he may pass notability guidelines) and has made a clear request for deletion, which WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE allows us to honour. Additionally, there is little actual biographical information in the article and it focuses on reviews of his books, which could very easily be split into separate articles with little loss of information. – Tera tix ₵ 01:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- And there are forums for that, however, this discussion is about if the article meets our criteria for inclusion.
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 00:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's harsh. Wikipedia's policies are made up, they're not laws and there's always IAR. This man is actually a real person and not someone hiding behind a username like most of us are. He's not a politician or someone who affects other people's lives, and not having an article about him harms nobody. - kyykaarme ( talk) 22:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, yes Dusti, "we have processes to ensure that information is updated" but as far as we can see he has been told that he has no right to expect that any such processes are in future carried through, only that if some unpaid volunteer in future happens to feel like doing it then we might do it as a favour to him as long as there are sources independent from him available for any updated information?
86.159.6.4 (
talk) 23:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC) So if your view is policy based I might be asking if some policies might be due for review given all the circumstances here in 2019?
86.159.6.4 (
talk) 00:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to change my vote for delete but to me the best reason for keeping (& keeping it up to date) is what I found on a search just now, a website I wasn't previously aware of https://deletionpedia.org/en/Ryan_Maness btw I'm taking a break now & my ISP will have changed my IP when I'm back 86.159.6.4 ( talk) 23:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete not based on the merits of the article but based on the subject's request to delete the article. This is not a high profile individual but a scholar who works in cyber-security and he might have valid reasons for not wanting to elevate his public profile. I don't think it is ethical to insist on publishing a profile of a academic who works in a sensitive area. I'd feel differently if we were talking about a politician who disliked negative coverage he was getting. This is a complimentary article so it's not the content he objects to but the presence of the article on Wikipedia. I don't think we should be stubborn, insist on keeping it and disregarding the very real impact this article could have on his professional pursuits. It's just not a high-profile article that Wikipedia needs to keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment are we forgetting that 1) We haven't even confirmed that this is actually the subject of the article and 2) The person stated
First, my information is seriously outdated. Second, I have my own webpage and academic sites that I use for people to access updated information about myself. Your Wikipedia page does me no service if it is to be so out of date.
I politely ask that you delete it or update it thoroughly. The alleged subject of the article is (was) upset due to the fact that the information was oudated NOT because we had an article about him. The article has been updated, satisfied the request of the subject. End of story. Dusti *Let's talk!* 04:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- "We haven't even confirmed that this is actually the subject of the article" Dusti you have been saying this for days, why don't you just give him a call? [REDACTED - Oshwah]
86.159.6.4 (
talk) 05:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Because, Ryan, if this issue is that important to you, you can follow the information and steps that I left on your
talk page. You can contact our
volunteer response team and they can assist you with the information located in your article. I'm surprised that you haven't been blocked yet for
block evasion, however, I would suggest that you join Wikipedia as a volunteer and collaborate. Everything located in your
article is editable, even by you. Try it. Just keep in mind the
policies that we have in place. I'm sorry that this has been such a negative experience for you and perhaps that can get turned around.
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 05:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- The article subject's (apparent) user account is indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 05:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Because, Ryan, if this issue is that important to you, you can follow the information and steps that I left on your
talk page. You can contact our
volunteer response team and they can assist you with the information located in your article. I'm surprised that you haven't been blocked yet for
block evasion, however, I would suggest that you join Wikipedia as a volunteer and collaborate. Everything located in your
article is editable, even by you. Try it. Just keep in mind the
policies that we have in place. I'm sorry that this has been such a negative experience for you and perhaps that can get turned around.
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 05:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- "We haven't even confirmed that this is actually the subject of the article" Dusti you have been saying this for days, why don't you just give him a call? [REDACTED - Oshwah]
86.159.6.4 (
talk) 05:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. Seems like there are two points here, whether the topic is notable and whether this warrants a BLPREQUESTDELETE deletion. On the first question, it seems like this has a consensus more in favour of the topic meeting notability guidelines although there is a little wriggle room thanks to bradv's statement - ordinarily this would be considered a keep consensus however. I note also the little discussed proposal by Teratix to write pages on the books published by the subject rather than the subject himself, but it hasn't received enough coverage to be deemed the consensus.
On the second question, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - both it and WP:BIODELETE that it relies upon are in fact policy - allows (not mandates) an AFD to be closed as delete if it a) is a biography of a living person, b) the subject requests deletion c) the subject is relatively unknown/not public and d) there is no rough consensus. Note that it doesn't say "subject must be non-notable" nor "updating the article means". In terms of the discussion a) is pretty much uncontested, b) has been contested by Dusti both on the grounds of account identity and the exact wording of the request but it doesn't seem like this consideration has convinced many people - I have some difficulty in finding precedents on whether we'd consider the situation here as sufficient evidence of a BLPREQUESTDELETE situation, c) hasn't received much consideration, but the fact that all notability claims here appear to be through his books rather than about any specific coverage of him speaks to this point being satisfied and d) seems to fit, as we have some people citing notability in favour of keeping (with a little doubt however) and others citing BLP (the privacy aspects) in favour of deletion.
Ultimately, I'll deem this a no-prejudice "no consensus". In my assessment, the concerns cited here are not so overwhelmingly in favour of deletion that they'd warrant a BLPREQUESTDELETE closure in light of the counterarguments presented. I emphasize that this is a no-prejudice close; a different. more explicitly deletion-requesting statement by the article subject through say WP:OTRS would probably warrant a re-do of this discussion and Teratix's proposal to "out-source" the coverage here to articles about the books would also deserve serious consideration as it'd address both Wikipedia's scope to catalogue encyclopedic topics and BLP issues; it just didn't receive enough discussion here to be deemed the consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Ryan Maness
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ryan Maness ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relatively unknown person who has requested deletion of his own article. PROD was removed after an incorrect assessment of WP:PROF#3, because these aren’t the type of professional societies that lead to notability, but even if they were it wouldn’t matter: WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE makes it quite clear we can delete this upon request of the subject, and to be perfectly blunt, to not delete an article about a private person who is unknown to the wider world but passes one of our arbitrary guidelines when they request it would be a jerk move on our part. Deleting is the right thing to do here from an ethical standpoint. Notability doesn’t particularly mater in this case. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - Passes notability guidelines, easily courtesy WP:NAUTHOR 4(c) and WP:NPROF C1. One of his books:- Cyber War Versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System has been near-unanimously documented to be a pioneer book, in the area of cyberspace, that (for the first time) introduced quantitative analysis in the field. See the section, that I wrote over Ryan_Maness#Cyber_War_Versus_Cyber_Realities:_Cyber_Conflict_in_the_International_System. At any case, I note multiple reviews of his works over:-
- Domingo, Francis C. (2015-10-02). "Cyber War Versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System by Brandon Valeriano and Ryan C. Maness". Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 12 (4): 399–401. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2015.1101039. ISSN 1933-1681.
- Joe Burton. Review of Valeriano, Brandon; Maness, Ryan C., Cyber War versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System. H-Diplo, H-Net Reviews. April, 2016.
- Nocetti, Julien (2016). "Disruptive power: the crisis of the state in the digital age. By Taylor Owen: The real cyber war: the political economy of internet freedom. By Shawn M. Powers and Michael Jablonski: Cyber war versus cyber realities: cyber conflict in the international system. By Brandon Valeriano and Ryan C. Maness". International Affairs. 92 (2): 463–465. doi: 10.1111/1468-2346.12565. ISSN 1468-2346.
- Gudgel, John E. (2016-05-03). "Cyber War versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System". Small Wars & Insurgencies. 27 (3): 550–552. doi: 10.1080/09592318.2016.1151659. ISSN 0959-2318.
- O’Connor, Courteney J (2017-05-01). "Book Review: Brandon Valeriano and Ryan C Maness, Cyber War versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System". Political Studies Review. 15 (2): 288–289. doi: 10.1177/1478929917689961. ISSN 1478-9299.
- Rivera, David W. (December 2018). "Russia's Coercive Diplomacy: Energy, Cyber, and Maritime Policy as New Sources of Power. By Ryan C. Maness and Brandon Valeriano. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. 250p. $109.99 cloth". Perspectives on Politics. 16 (4): 1234–1236. doi: 10.1017/S1537592718002335. ISSN 1537-5927.
- "Book Review: 'Cyber Strategy: The Evolving Character of Power and Coercion'". International Policy Digest. 2018-10-19. Retrieved 2019-05-30.
- Harknett, Richard (October 2018).
"Review of Valeriano, Brandon; Jensen, Benjamin M.; Maness, Ryan C., Cyber Strategy: The Evolving Character of Power and Coercion". H-Diplo, H-Review. Retrieved 2019-05-30.
{{ cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=( help) - Oslo (PRIO), Peace Pesearch Institute. "Maness, Ryan D & Brandon Valeriano (2015) Russia's Coercive Diplomacy: Energy, Cyber, and Maritime Policy as New Sources of Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, xiii+250 pp., index. - PRIO". www.prio.org. Retrieved 2019-05-30.
∯WBG converse 03:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- The argument for deletion isn't from notability, which frankly doesn't matter one iota in this case. The subject of the BLP has requested it be deleted. He is not a prominent figure. He is a person who simply wants his privacy to be respected. Our policy allows us to consider that as a valid reason for deletion. He's not trying to hide from anything. He doesn't like the fact that his privacy is being invaded and that the first thing that comes up when you Google him is basically guaranteed to always be out of date. Policy allows us to consider these valid reasons for deletion, I certainly would do the same if someone wrote an article about me.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 04:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- notability, which frankly doesn't matter one iota in this case -- that's so wrong, from every aspect. Per BLPREQUESTDELETE, we evaluate the notability of the subject and iff he's a borderline case, we do opt for obliging the subject's request of deletion. You cannot divorce notability from any deletion policy, in entirety.
- At any case, if this ends up being kept, I will re-write it. Guaranteed to be always out of date? That's weird, do you feel that the encyclopedic details of his CV does change too rapidly?
- Overall, I am not inclined to consider the line of argument, forwarded by you in light of the fact that apart from the above bunch of sources, there are other reviews of his works too.
∯WBG
converse 04:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see the word notable anywhere in
WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, and the BLP policy has a presumption of privacy. We don't have to delete articles, if Donald Trump or Theresa May requested their article deleted we certainly wouldn't, but if a notable
private person who probably 99.99% of editors hadn't heard of until the subject decided to request deletion asks us to delete it on the grounds that it's an invasion of privacy and will be out of date, well, that is something we should consider just from an ethical perspective, and the policy is written to allow us to consider it.On always out of date: you may be able to update it now, but I don't think it will be updated for every career move he makes, and he's young enough that he will make several and could hold multiple positions at the same time. The likelihood of the first page that appears about you on Google containing factual errors is a valid concern.On the whole, requests from private persons to delete their articles when they aren't overwhelmingly notable (he isn't) and when they aren't trying to whitewash something (he isn't) should be granted. This guy made the mistake of fighting with a high-profile admin over it, and quite frankly was a jerk about it, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a human being and he retains certain moral rights that our movement as a whole has typically been fairly supportive of. No real harm comes from deleting this and the good of respecting someone's privacy when they have requested it occurs. That's a positive thing, and policy allows it.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 04:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I have a couple of issues with this:
- 1. He's not asking us to delete this due to the fact that he's concerned about his privacy. He stated I politely ask that you delete it or update it thoroughly.
- 1a. That tells me that he isn't as concerned about his privacy as he is about having updated, factual information on his Article. I believe this is where WP:SOFIXIT comes in to play. I've left him a note on his talk page about the proper process on getting things updated. Granted, he's currently blocked, but there's still OTRS and his talk page avenue. We just need to ensure that we remain in line with policy.
- 2. We don't know that this is actually him. There's no OTRS ticket that I'm aware of, and we're running to delete this article based on a random profile that's upset.
- 3. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. We're running based on the fact that we're assuming he wants it simply deleted. He's stated multiple times that he wants it to be updated or deleted.
- 1. He's not asking us to delete this due to the fact that he's concerned about his privacy. He stated I politely ask that you delete it or update it thoroughly.
- Either way, it seems like someone isn't going to be happy with the way this ends. Dusti *Let's talk!* 04:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- BLPREQUESTDELETE states:- relatively unknown, non-public figures. I have no idea, as to how are we going to decide these particular traits of a random XYZ, w/o seeing the levels of coverage of him/his works across sources. His works have been reviewed by multiple (~10) journals in quite favorable terms and in fields related with social science, reviews across major publications are highly reliable indicator of a person's repute (than citations et al).
99.99% of editors hadn't heard of
is a grossly poor argument. I, knew about this subject, having read one of his books and FWIW, can make a safe bet, that 99.99% of the editorial populace don't have a clue about 99% of our BLPs.- I have idea about how the academia operates and I refuse to buy your claim about career moves and all that.
- This guy was pissed off about a poor article and stated:-
I politely ask that you delete it or update it thoroughly
. And, you choose to remedy that by not taking the latter option. That's an exceedingly poor way of managing stuff and we agree to disagree. ∯WBG converse 04:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)- This will be my last reply, but I do want to reply since this should not be about book reviews but should be about respecting a private person. He made it abundently clear he prefered deletion, and asked us to see the deletion through. He doesn't have that much news coverage and academic book reviews don't make one a public figure. Neither do a few news reports a few years ago.Re: the no OTRS ticket argument: I think we should use some basic common sense that someone isn't going to imply legal threats and try to get Wikipedia further regulated over a biography that isn't theirs. Yes, it isn't definitive proof, but the person who has requested this deletion is acting consistent with being the subject of the article. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I understand where you're coming from, I really do. I have a couple of issues with this:
- I don't see the word notable anywhere in
WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, and the BLP policy has a presumption of privacy. We don't have to delete articles, if Donald Trump or Theresa May requested their article deleted we certainly wouldn't, but if a notable
private person who probably 99.99% of editors hadn't heard of until the subject decided to request deletion asks us to delete it on the grounds that it's an invasion of privacy and will be out of date, well, that is something we should consider just from an ethical perspective, and the policy is written to allow us to consider it.On always out of date: you may be able to update it now, but I don't think it will be updated for every career move he makes, and he's young enough that he will make several and could hold multiple positions at the same time. The likelihood of the first page that appears about you on Google containing factual errors is a valid concern.On the whole, requests from private persons to delete their articles when they aren't overwhelmingly notable (he isn't) and when they aren't trying to whitewash something (he isn't) should be granted. This guy made the mistake of fighting with a high-profile admin over it, and quite frankly was a jerk about it, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a human being and he retains certain moral rights that our movement as a whole has typically been fairly supportive of. No real harm comes from deleting this and the good of respecting someone's privacy when they have requested it occurs. That's a positive thing, and policy allows it.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 04:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- The argument for deletion isn't from notability, which frankly doesn't matter one iota in this case. The subject of the BLP has requested it be deleted. He is not a prominent figure. He is a person who simply wants his privacy to be respected. Our policy allows us to consider that as a valid reason for deletion. He's not trying to hide from anything. He doesn't like the fact that his privacy is being invaded and that the first thing that comes up when you Google him is basically guaranteed to always be out of date. Policy allows us to consider these valid reasons for deletion, I certainly would do the same if someone wrote an article about me.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 04:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Neutral leaning towards keepStriking the neutral vote as I'm moving to keep and will be commenting that down at the bottom.I haven't really had time to look over anything, and as I said on Bbb23's talk page I'm not familiar with the whole Fellow thing, so I didn't know there was a difference between someone who's a fellow and a visiting fellow. He does get 45,000 hits on Google and a pretty good number of citations on Google Scholar. The user is rather upset on their talk page and in all honesty - we haven't verified their identity. For all we know, it could be Betty White posing as Ryan Maness. I know, that's absurd, but this could be anyone posing as him. Dusti *Let's talk!* 04:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- More reviews --
- Wirtz, James J. (2018-04-03). "Cyber War or Monkey Business?". International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence. 31 (2): 415–419. doi: 10.1080/08850607.2018.1418586. ISSN 0885-0607.
- Stevens, Tim (2013-04-01). "Cyberspace and National Security: Threats, Opportunities, and Power in a Virtual World". Contemporary Security Policy. 34 (1): 254–256. doi: 10.1080/13523260.2013.776801. ISSN 1352-3260.
∯WBG converse 04:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete – does not meet
NPROF. The usual minimum level of citations argued at AfD are 3 journal articles each with over 100 citations –
Maness has 1. None of the NPROF criteria are met – he is not a full professor, has not received any major award or honour, and has not had a substantial impact in his academic capacity (as demonstrated by the lack of citations). –
bradv
🍁 05:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- We have consistently noted the amount of book reviews to be an indicator of C1 in fields of social science. WP:NACADEMIC states:-
Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones. Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences. Also, in sciences, most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries).
Claiming that someone in fields crosscutting with social science will have 3 journal articles each with over 100 citations is .... - Also,
WP:NAUTHOR 4(C) states:-
Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals are presumed notable if the person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention
. ∯WBG converse 05:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)- So you would consider the above reviews "significant critical attention"? I'm not sure exactly where that bar is, but I'm pretty sure it's higher than that. Furthermore, how do you propose we write this article? The only source that offers any biographical information is self-published (and a dead link), and there's nothing to be found other than mentions in passing. So we really can't write much more than "he co-wrote two books." –
bradv
🍁 05:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
-
Bradv, see my re-write.
∯WBG
converse 06:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- The subject's own CV is not a reliable source. – bradv 🍁 06:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
-
Bradv, see my re-write.
∯WBG
converse 06:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- So you would consider the above reviews "significant critical attention"? I'm not sure exactly where that bar is, but I'm pretty sure it's higher than that. Furthermore, how do you propose we write this article? The only source that offers any biographical information is self-published (and a dead link), and there's nothing to be found other than mentions in passing. So we really can't write much more than "he co-wrote two books." –
bradv
🍁 05:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- We have consistently noted the amount of book reviews to be an indicator of C1 in fields of social science. WP:NACADEMIC states:-
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG converse 05:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: as per the subject's request. Could be marginally notable an an author, but not overwhelmingly so to ignore the wishes of the subject of the article. Some people pay good money to have a BLP article, while some don't want to be in Wikipedia. The second case is certainly healthier and we should honour reasonable requests.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 06:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- K.e.coffman, that's not even remotely policy based and we haven't even confirmed if this is even the subject of the article. Dusti *Let's talk!* 06:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- The guy has written books published not too long ago, if confirmation is needed that he really is the one complaining it really shouldn't be too difficult to contact him or his agent... 86.159.6.4 ( talk) 18:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- The bottom line is that Wikipedia would not be significantly improved by retaining this article. --
K.e.coffman (
talk) 07:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- K.e.coffman, Wikipedia isn't significantly improved by retaining any specific article. We have policies for a reason. Let's just chuck them to the bin because one person is upset that there's an out of date article about them, rather than fixing it and following the procedures we already have. Dusti *Let's talk!* 07:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Is it possible the article's subject could be switched to Maness's book Cyber War Versus Cyber Realities? I think that would be a good compromise since that seems to be his most notable work and it passes the first criterion of
WP:NBOOK. –
Tera
tix
₵ 08:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Teratix, the third one has ample reviews. I am yet to add all. ∯WBG converse 08:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I am not him (really) but putting myself in this guy's shoes for a moment, he's published books, they've been reviewed, he might need to accept he is now, to some extent, a public figure. However, we are not journalists here, we are an encyclopedia. It would be nice if what was written about him here was kept strictly relevant to the thing he is notable for. Also, quite stressful I think to now always have to keep an eye on what is written about you. Looking at the article I'd suggest the first thing that could have been done was to 'future proof' it by removing the present tense from some of it, more explicitly just looking at 'who he was' at the time he wrote the books? Then see where we go from there? 86.159.6.4 ( talk) 18:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Since he's blocked & currently we have no further opportunity to clarify his wishes I'm going with the article being updated was his second choice, he'd prefer deletion because (as I take it) he's not offered guarantees of future accurate updates & his ongoing involvement here would be time consuming for him. I think an individual in his position has every right to be angry & shouldn't need to familiarise themselves with complex etiquette & procedures here before expressing his quite reasonable view. 86.159.6.4 ( talk) 22:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR, co-author of well known books (ie. Cyber War Versus Cyber Realities in about 230 libraries, Russia's Coercive Diplomacy in about 130 libraries, Cyber Strategy in about 195 libraries.), that have plenty of reviews (many in the article). Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think the problem is whether Maness passes WP:NAUTHOR. The question is whether to honour his request for deletion per BLPREQUESTDELETE, as he is not a public figure. – Tera tix ₵ 13:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Coolabahapple, yeah, this is about his request for deletion and whether or not to honour it, not about the notability. Basically the argument for deletion can be summed up in this comment from AGK on an unrelated case. We strongly respect privacy as a movement, and historically we've been fairly liberal with granting requests for deletion, though it isn't guaranteed. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The presumed (but not proven) subject of the article asked that the article either be deleted or updated thoroughly. Since then, the article has been updated thoroughly, so his request has been fulfilled. There is nothing in the article that violates his privacy in the slightest. The article should be kept, and the subject can make edit requests from his talk page if he so chooses. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. The potential harm to the subject outweighs the benefit of having a listing of book reviews in one place. - kyykaarme ( talk) 20:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. The notability through WP:AUTHOR is clear enough that I don't think we should let the subject's wishes override. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I don't really see any valid policy based arguments for deletion. Per the keep !votes or arguments, I'm seeing strong policy based reasons. If the subject didn't want himself to be in the public eye or establish notoriety, he shouldn't have written numerous books. Unfortunately for him, he's now established himself in the public eye and appropriately so, an article about him has risen on Wikipedia. While there may have been some BLP violations in the article, we have processes to ensure that information is updated and that seemed to be his main concern. Those issues have been fixed, the article is now updated, and as such - it falls in line with WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Those are policy based arguments. Dusti *Let's talk!* 22:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, yes Dusti, "we have processes to ensure that information is updated" but as far as we can see he has been told that he has no right to expect that any such processes are in future carried through, only that if some unpaid volunteer in future happens to feel like doing it then we might do it as a favour to him as long as there are sources independent from him available for any updated information?
86.159.6.4 (
talk) 23:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC) So if your view is policy based I might be asking if some policies might be due for review given all the circumstances here in 2019?
86.159.6.4 (
talk) 00:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- And there are forums for that, however, this discussion is about if the article meets our criteria for inclusion.
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 00:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- The policy-based argument for deletion is that the subject, a living person, is relatively unknown (even though he may pass notability guidelines) and has made a clear request for deletion, which WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE allows us to honour. Additionally, there is little actual biographical information in the article and it focuses on reviews of his books, which could very easily be split into separate articles with little loss of information. – Tera tix ₵ 01:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- And there are forums for that, however, this discussion is about if the article meets our criteria for inclusion.
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 00:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's harsh. Wikipedia's policies are made up, they're not laws and there's always IAR. This man is actually a real person and not someone hiding behind a username like most of us are. He's not a politician or someone who affects other people's lives, and not having an article about him harms nobody. - kyykaarme ( talk) 22:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, yes Dusti, "we have processes to ensure that information is updated" but as far as we can see he has been told that he has no right to expect that any such processes are in future carried through, only that if some unpaid volunteer in future happens to feel like doing it then we might do it as a favour to him as long as there are sources independent from him available for any updated information?
86.159.6.4 (
talk) 23:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC) So if your view is policy based I might be asking if some policies might be due for review given all the circumstances here in 2019?
86.159.6.4 (
talk) 00:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to change my vote for delete but to me the best reason for keeping (& keeping it up to date) is what I found on a search just now, a website I wasn't previously aware of https://deletionpedia.org/en/Ryan_Maness btw I'm taking a break now & my ISP will have changed my IP when I'm back 86.159.6.4 ( talk) 23:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete not based on the merits of the article but based on the subject's request to delete the article. This is not a high profile individual but a scholar who works in cyber-security and he might have valid reasons for not wanting to elevate his public profile. I don't think it is ethical to insist on publishing a profile of a academic who works in a sensitive area. I'd feel differently if we were talking about a politician who disliked negative coverage he was getting. This is a complimentary article so it's not the content he objects to but the presence of the article on Wikipedia. I don't think we should be stubborn, insist on keeping it and disregarding the very real impact this article could have on his professional pursuits. It's just not a high-profile article that Wikipedia needs to keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment are we forgetting that 1) We haven't even confirmed that this is actually the subject of the article and 2) The person stated
First, my information is seriously outdated. Second, I have my own webpage and academic sites that I use for people to access updated information about myself. Your Wikipedia page does me no service if it is to be so out of date.
I politely ask that you delete it or update it thoroughly. The alleged subject of the article is (was) upset due to the fact that the information was oudated NOT because we had an article about him. The article has been updated, satisfied the request of the subject. End of story. Dusti *Let's talk!* 04:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- "We haven't even confirmed that this is actually the subject of the article" Dusti you have been saying this for days, why don't you just give him a call? [REDACTED - Oshwah]
86.159.6.4 (
talk) 05:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Because, Ryan, if this issue is that important to you, you can follow the information and steps that I left on your
talk page. You can contact our
volunteer response team and they can assist you with the information located in your article. I'm surprised that you haven't been blocked yet for
block evasion, however, I would suggest that you join Wikipedia as a volunteer and collaborate. Everything located in your
article is editable, even by you. Try it. Just keep in mind the
policies that we have in place. I'm sorry that this has been such a negative experience for you and perhaps that can get turned around.
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 05:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- The article subject's (apparent) user account is indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 05:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Because, Ryan, if this issue is that important to you, you can follow the information and steps that I left on your
talk page. You can contact our
volunteer response team and they can assist you with the information located in your article. I'm surprised that you haven't been blocked yet for
block evasion, however, I would suggest that you join Wikipedia as a volunteer and collaborate. Everything located in your
article is editable, even by you. Try it. Just keep in mind the
policies that we have in place. I'm sorry that this has been such a negative experience for you and perhaps that can get turned around.
Dusti
*Let's talk!* 05:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- "We haven't even confirmed that this is actually the subject of the article" Dusti you have been saying this for days, why don't you just give him a call? [REDACTED - Oshwah]
86.159.6.4 (
talk) 05:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- 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.