Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcia Pally (2nd nomination)

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 Delete. The article was already deleted once after the first AfD and the subject still does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In addition, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and this article being used for possible harassment against the subject results in the article not only needing to be gone but also given a heavy dose of WP:SALT. SouthernNights (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Pally

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

article is harassment by a stalker and was previously deleted 8 June 2021 Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, seems like this was deleted 12 months ago on the basis of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and recreated a few months later, though I am not seeing anything disparaging in the article which alone would justify deletion. There seems to have been reasonable efforts to develop an article although I don't see anything to suggest the subject has changed their stance on wanting an article about themselves. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's well-covered in media and is an academic. Sources show notability. She was a member in residence and a fellow of notable academic "units?" (unsure what to call them, beyond my field of expertise). The pornography section seems well-balanced and very NPOV. Oaktree b (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am at a loss to understand the subject’s ad hominem attack and will not comment upon it. The present article is substantially different from the deleted article that the subject felt was inaccurate and disparaging. The article is a neutral, objective description of a notable academic who has been a prominent journalist and public personality for some forty years, and who has published numerous books on a wide variety of subjects. It is entirely based upon reliable third-party sources, the subject’s own publications, public statements, and appearances in the media. It makes no judgments, expresses no opinions, and reveals no sensitive personal information. I do not see how the subject can find the article in any way offensive.AlexaVamos (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC) — AlexaVamos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No indication that subject requested this deletion specifically, was just the previous one, no way to tell from nomination[1] if subject finds this version offensive. Article does appear neutral and fair to me but definitely can't say entirely based on third-party sources. A lot of the article is WP:PRIMARY sources, so not secondary or done by third parties. User generated source like IMDB has been removed now. Some cleaning up should be done for sure, particularly what seems to be WP:REFBOMBS. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Primefac, how did the subject request deletion last time? Aaabbbyyyzzz, you've said you're a friend of Pally's. Is she again requesting deletion? If so, has she made that request clear in the same way she did last time? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Through WP:VRTS. I would make the not-unreasonable assumption that if she wanted the article deleted six months ago, she still holds that opinion. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Primefac. It was a year ago, not six months, but that's perhaps a reasonable assumption. I'm operating with less info than you, who can see the deleted version, and AlexaVamos, who appears to have some prior knowledge of what it contained. Do you care to comment on AV's point that this new version is "substantially different"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a friend of Prof. Pally and she is adamant that this article be deleted. Contrary to some of the discussion above, the article does not portray her career accurately. It inappropriately amplifies her work in journalism, which was a relatively brief phase of her career, compared to her 30+ years in academia, which constitute her substantive life's work. More notably, it amplifies minor -- even minuscule -- aspects of her work, giving a false impression that she was significantly involved in pornography or that she was an activist of any significance in LGBT or AIDS-related causes. Most of the statements are factually correct, but irrelevant to her life's work and they amount to a skewed portrait of her. The intentional skew toward pornography and sex-oriented subjects is the hallmark of the stalker noted above. (Some statements are not correct, such as her roles in GLAAD, which were discussed at length in my arguments in the last deletion effort, and some are so obscure and insignificant that Prof. Pally herself had forgotten about them, such as the inclusion of her portrait in the Robert Giard book. Such facts are so obscure that only an obsessive stalker would have found them.)

If "AlexaVamos" is not the stalker and is "at a loss to understand the ad-hominem attack", then his/her contribution to the article bears an uncanny resemblance to the stalker's barrage of harassing emails and text messages that have been sent to Prof. Pally and her colleagues for the clear purpose of character assassination. This was all amply documented in the previous deletion effort. Whether or not "AlexaVamos" is the stalker, Wikipedia needs to understand that Professor Pally has been for several years the object of an aggressive harassment campaign, and that this article is either an instrument of that campaign or a bears a striking similarity to it. Wikipedia, with its all-anonymous editing community, can be weaponized in this manner, and Wikipedia should be on guard against such misuse. If there is any doubt as to whether this article represents such harassment, I recommend that the subject of the article should be given the benefit of the doubt, to best ensure that Wikipedia is not weaponized as an instrument of harassment. This is especially so for a non-notable, or marginally notable person. Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could she submit a request for deletion via WP:VRTS as she did last time? I would support deletion upon request. I'll look into the inaccuracies or over-weighted details you mention above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I / she will be happy to submit a request for deletion via WP:VRTS. Can you please provide the exact link; clicking on WP:VRTS, it was not clear to me where such a request would be entered. I also request, since this problem has recurred even after deletion, and since it relates significantly to a truly threatening real-life harassment campaign, that the deletion be made permanent and that the creation of new articles about this subject be barred. Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaabbbyyyzzz, this isn't something I have experience with. I believe she could email info-en@wikimedia.org, which is handled by the VRTS team. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A further response regarding your review (much appreciated) of the over-weighted emphasis on salacious subjects: simply notice how much of the article relates to her brief and long-ago journalistic career, compared to how much relates to her decades-long and ongoing academic career. There is a clear over-emphasis on the journalism (and, within that, an over-emphasis on her role at the pornographic magazine Penthouse, which was a very minor aspect of her journalism). The long list of academic books itself suggests the scope of the academic career and conspicuously indicates the subjects that should be emphasized in an article on Prof. Pally. That said, the remedy sought is deletion, not correction, because the skewed emphasis is clearly an act of harassment and not merely a matter of poor editing. Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I know much of anything about the subject than what is/was in the article, but I do agree that it was written with some questionable additions. I did a slight bit of clean up last week, and somethings did lean towards trying to point a WP:UNDUE picture. Some examples were listing a select few of her written articles out of many, in what appear to have been done by simply searching for the ones that had the word pornography in it and listing them all whether they were more notable than others or not. The mentioned photograph and the inclusion of the short documentary seemed to be just trying to subtlety link sources that mentioned her personal life from the 70s/80s, while pretending not to infer it in the article. The article has a section on her academic career which is nearly completely source with primary references from her or the institutions, while the journalism section looked to find as many sources as possible to put more information and focus their. If WP:TNT needs to happen again than so be it, and maybe with a little salt added in if a version that is more balance can't be formed. If the article is kept (or deleted and remade again later), there probably should be some consensus on what to include and balance in a new version, I have no clue how old article looked and if this is a significantly better version with some of same issues added back in, or if it is still the same problems rehashed. There were talk page discussions lost in the old deletion too. I don't know if the old deleted talk page discussion could be put into Talk:Marcia Pally/Archive 1, as it might give some more detail on the edit war that occurred back then, or if an admin just wants to summarize what was there and we can see if those issues are present here again. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea; done. Primefac (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are understanding the issue clearly, WikiVirusC; your close examination of the article and its sources is much appreciated. The writer of the article is indeed using subtle means to present an apparently objective article while emphasizing information and sources that are in fact very obscure in order to skew the article toward a salacious emphasis that is inappropriate, misleading and defamatory. I have many pdfs of the article and discussions relating to the previous article, which I can attempt to upload to the archive you mention, if that will be helpful for the discussion. That said, I think the discussion so far on this page should be sufficient to reach a decision to delete, since it has recognized an intentional skewing of information for the harassment of a non-notable person, repeating the offenses that resulted in the previous deletion decision, all of which is closely related (or, as a practical matter, highly similar) to a real-life harassment campaign that has caused the subject intense distress for years on end. I again underscore the importance of preventing Wikipedia from being weaponized as an instrument of harassment, a principle that should result in strict enforcement, giving the marginally-notable subject the benefit of the doubt. The lack of notability, btw, is underscored by the lack of multiple perspectives in the writing -- it is not crowdsourced, its substance is all the work of "AlexaVamos". The reason that fewer restrictions apply to notable subjects is that they are known by, and their W articles are written by, a larger population, who are collectively more likely than a lone writer to produce an accurate and balanced article. Aaabbbyyyzzz (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous versions aren't needed, at least not for me. It was deleted previously already, no need to restore to archives. I just wanted to see the previous discussions that were there. Now able to do so thanks to Primefac. WikiVirusC^(talk) 11:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this AFD discussion as the discussion has been active yesterday and today. Lots of comments about the article and its creation but so far only the nominator is advocating deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Journalism, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:BIODEL states: Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is "no clear consensus to keep" may be closed as delete. Just keep in mind it's not an unambiguous requirement to delete on subject's request. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 12:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primarily because WP:BLPDELETE in the context of:

Bona fide privacy, and professional reputation concerns
Previous AfD concluding in delete
She is not very notable
Appears to be created by a WP:SPA CT55555 (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - I attempted to edit this article to remove what appear to be misuse of references, e.g. for WP:SYNTH, as well as WP:OR, and some WP:BLP concerns. From my view, this article attempted (and still attempts) to create an WP:UNDUE focus on aspects of Pally's career that does not appear well-supported by the references. Other editors have also attempted to address concerns, including source reliability and a WP:BLP issue. As this article is revised to remove poorly-sourced claims, I think it is more clear that notability supported by secondary sources is borderline at best. Beccaynr (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. If it wasn't for that I'd might have !voted the other way as WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree with Beccaynr that WP:SALT may be required, given this is the 2nd AFD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree about this too. CT55555 (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote and suggestion to WP:SALT is influenced by WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and the previous AfD (where I !voted and mentioned WP:TNT), as well as my review of some of the WP:REFCLUTTER and how sources were used, as compared to the representations made above by the article creator. Pally does not appear to be high-profile or well-known, or a particularly notable or prominent academic, journalist, or public personality.

The article creator was aware of the previous AfD and request by the article subject, but has continued to try to create the article. There is no indication that the article subject has changed their mind, and we should not require them to reaffirm their request to delete, particularly under these circumstances.

Based on this third attempt to create the article, full creation-protection may help, particularly after this article was approved at AfC with 83 references [2]. See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 9, where salting is mentioned. Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt by WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The BLP seems to be being used by an editor as a weapon in a POV war. Citation record is around the borderline so no cause to override WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.