Jump to content

Talk:Al Giordano

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brmull (talk | contribs) at 04:31, 27 May 2016 (→Contested deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Contested deletion

This is a complete re-write of the deleted article, with more sources for notability than were present during the AFD. "[G4] excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." --Xavexgoem (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A deleted article does not get to be immediately re-created and tinkered with in the mainspace. Editors were advised at Deletion Review discussion to work on the article in a sandbox for a few weeks, try to come up with some sources that demonstrate notability, and reduce the reliance on the dubious and self-promotional Rolling Stone blurb. Brmull (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Xavexgoem. The scope of the deletion review was solely to discuss procedural errors in the closure of the first AfD. Notability itself was not relevant. This new version contains new sources that were not considered at AfD, and they are enough to say this version is not "substantially identical" under WP:G4. I strongly advise renominating to AfD instead if you feel this should still be deleted. Mz7 (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. The closing admin on the AfD wrote: "The consensus is that at the moment, he does not meet the notability criteria. If he is successful in running for a Senate seat, his notability at that time can be taken into consideration for re-creating the article. PhantomSteve". These were the sources at the time of the AfD:
^ Mim Udovitch (August 30, 2001). "Hot Muckraker: Al Giordano". Rolling Stone.
^ "Damn You, Barack Obama". Boston Phoenix. September 26, 2007.
^ "The Good, the Bad, and Joe Lieberman". Vanity Fair. February 2009.
^ Zapa-Sutra
The Udovitch blurb remains as the main source for notability. It is an entertainment piece, not a reliable source for important facts. The Cheshes article is called "error-laden" by Giordano himself on his blog so it should not be a source for BLP. Neither Jezer, Wolcott nor Dodson come close to establishing notability. Brmull (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD is not in question. The deletion review states that it is not up for discussion whether " subject is notable (which is a matter for the AfD discussion, whereas this process only reviews procedural errors in the AfD's closure". It is allowable to rework the article. Indeed, I worked on the article in my sandbox, as advised. This version, per Mz7, is not substantially identical under WP:G4. It does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Ricardiana (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is substantially the same. You broke down the blockquote and added inline citations but the basis for the AfD--that Giordano is not notable because the sources do not demonstrate notability--remains as valid as ever. By immediately recreating the article, you are violating the outcome of the Deletion Review. Brmull (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the article from scratch using sources I culled from university databases. As Mz7 suggested, if it is emotionally important to you that this new, sourced version by an editor with multiple Featured Articles be deleted, then simply renominate to AfD. Ricardiana (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. Complete rewrite, reliable sources. Needs some work, e.g. current "notability" - Mr. Giordano is, after all, currently being quoted and talked about by a LOT of people. Haven't gotten around to adding my references to the article (deletion of old article and posting of new one took me by surprise) but will in the next few days. Question for the new nominator: If Mr. Giordano is so unnotable, why is deleting a Wikipedia article on him so important to you? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just located the archived discussion page on the deletion review log (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_May_17), and I'm starting to think that this is a lost cause. The vandals win! So, for the record, here's some stuff that didn't make it into the discussion due to its sudden end.
The nominator for deletion, Underdog 456, spent two days in January on a Hillary Clinton page, deleting references: Here’s his contributions page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Underdog456, and here is Clinton’s page (another editor caught on pretty soon, called it vandalism): https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016&dir=prev&offset=20160107061059&limit=500&action=history; https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endorsements%2C_2016&type=revision&diff=701551084&oldid=701550155. The dates and times you need to look for are from 21:09, 24 Jan 16 (Underdog456) to 05:57, 25 Jan 26 (PotvinSux). I checked on one of the deleted non-endorsers (Marge Hoffa, Minnesota), and she is indeed supporting Mrs. Clinton and listed in the reference (7th line from the bottom in the “Hosted By” section). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brmull: The consensus of the first AfD was, indeed, that the subject was not notable. However, the editors who recreated the article now have presented sources that were not considered at the AfD. The outcome of the deletion review was solely that the closure of the prior AfD was procedurally valid—not an endorsement that the subject is indeed not notable. In fact, Wikipedia policy specifies that past consensus is not binding on the future. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#If you disagree with the consensus encourages us that if we disagree with the outcome of the discussion (not procedural errors with the closure), we should recreate the article. WP:G4 only applies if the content of the article is substantially the same – here, the article has been rewritten and contains sources that weren't presented at the AfD. If you still believe that the subject is not notable, re-nominate to AfD instead. Mz7 (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To add, although it might have been more prudent to wait a few days or weeks after the deletion review before recreating the article, I think that to give those who believe that the subject is notable a fair hearing, we should have another deletion discussion before deleting this new version, especially given the controversial nature of the deletion review. If the new AfD results in delete, then that result should be respected. Specifically, we should discuss whether the Abbie Hoffman biography, The Guardian article, and others establish notability. Mz7 (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it has been completely rewritten and includes half a dozen reliable sources. --Ricardiana (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --2601:642:C401:36E0:70C0:C2B1:B165:DEAF (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this page is being tagged as a possible speedy deletion because Bernie Sanders supporters do not like the idea that he has a primary challenger. It is utter insanity (and hypocrisy) that wikipedia might deleted it because of that. THE MAN IS RUNNING FOR SENATE. If "Bernie Sanders Dank Meme Stash" is a wikipedia page, this obviously should as well.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... Article has been rewritten with better citations. And he's still notable even if you don't like him. --Uvaduck (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually just like 99.999999999% of the world I don't care about him, which is why he shouldn't have a Wikipedia page. As far as the article having been rewritten, the primary cite, as with much of the prose, is still the same. Take for example the first paragraph, how he was "running the Rowe Nuclear Conversion Campaign, which resulted in the first shut-down of a nuclear power plant". I can't find any independent information about this group. I can't find any information that any protest group, let alone RNCC, ever succeeded in forcing a shut-down of a nuclear power plant in the U.S. I found one counter-source saying it was never done. Would you feel comfortable putting this cite in the Wikipedia article about the nuclear protest movement or the article about the Rowe nuclear power plant? I wouldn't, and therefore I don't think it belongs in a bio either. Brmull (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Giordano&oldid=722292860"